UK Opinion Polls Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:39:27 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 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 23
Author Topic: UK Opinion Polls Thread  (Read 68637 times)
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #325 on: October 25, 2010, 02:49:20 PM »

ICM/The Guardian 24th October 2010
39 (-1) 36 (nc) 16 (nc)

Populus/The Times 24th October 2010
38 (+1) 37 (-2) 15 (+1)

Ed's Labour take the lead for the first time with Populus, in their first poll since September 12th. ICM remains static since their poll on the 22nd for The News of the World.

People don't appear to be that bothered about the all new age of austerity.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #326 on: October 25, 2010, 03:46:52 PM »

Then why are Labour doing so much better than at the General Election and the LibDems so much worse? The CSR didn't come as a shock to the system because the build-up for it has been going on for months. Government popularity tends to erode rather than suddenly collapse and that's very much been the pattern we've seen so far. Government support only tends to fall suddenly when there are material factors at work; we saw this with price rises in 2008, for example.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #327 on: October 25, 2010, 04:03:20 PM »

Then why are Labour doing so much better than at the General Election and the LibDems so much worse? The CSR didn't come as a shock to the system because the build-up for it has been going on for months. Government popularity tends to erode rather than suddenly collapse and that's very much been the pattern we've seen so far. Government support only tends to fall suddenly when there are material factors at work; we saw this with price rises in 2008, for example.

Good point, but I was just expecting the government to take more of a hit this week, but they appear to have been on full-on spin mode.

The LibDems are doing so badly because they're seen as "the betrayers", they're not governing how they promised they would. There's also some tactical unwide from Labour voters who tactically voted Liberal to.

All I can observe is that, really, Lab-Con are both doing brilliantly on all counts considering Labour only left office 5 months ago surrounded by sheer division and unpopularity and the Cons are having to make very difficult decisions. Both would be gaining seats if there was an election tomorrow, which can't be a bad thing for either of them, really in these dynamics...

I have a feeling that come January when the VAT rise hits and Christmas bills start hitting doorsteps and the first wave of austerity measures sweep the nation, it'll be the Liberals that bear the brunt of it. Especially come May when they have to explain why they seem to care more about a referendum, which most people don't really care that much about and that is costing £10m, than people's jobs. There is absolutely no where to go but down for the Liberals, for Lab/Con on the other hand, they'll both be in a better position than they were in May 2010.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #328 on: October 25, 2010, 05:25:39 PM »

YouGov Poll:

Tories - 40%
Labour - 40%
Lib Dems - 11%
Others - 9%
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #329 on: October 25, 2010, 05:31:14 PM »

YouGov Poll:

Tories - 40%
Labour - 40%
Lib Dems - 11%
Others - 9%

Most movements on the YG are mostly noise, but a tie's good to see. Labour would've killed for 40% back in May.

They've been having it at 40-43 37-40 10-12 for a while now.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #330 on: November 03, 2010, 05:21:37 PM »
« Edited: November 03, 2010, 05:41:01 PM by Senator-elect Extremist (R-Everywhere) »

YouGov

40 (-1)
40 (nc)
9 (-2)

LOL.

Coalition - 49
Non-coalition - 51

Just sayin', even though measuring the polls like that is stupid.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #331 on: November 13, 2010, 05:02:34 PM »

Labour jump ahead on Sunday's YouGov:

41 (+1)
39 (-1)
10 (nc)

Approval -10

No, some consistent movement away from the Libs. Tuition fees clearly aren't doing them any good.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #332 on: November 15, 2010, 05:32:57 PM »

Labour still ahead, two days later:
42 (+1)
40 (+1)
10 (nc)

Government approval: minus 10 - 37/47 no change.

Tuition fees have definately hurt the Liberals.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #333 on: November 16, 2010, 05:23:48 PM »

Latest YouGov:

Lab - 42 (nc)
Con - 37 (-3)
Lib - 10 (nc)

Labour 42, Coalition 47. How long until Labour leap frog both parties?

UKPR has the first Lab majority average i've seen since i've been using the site. A majority of 34 on 41-38-10.
Logged
Insula Dei
belgiansocialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #334 on: November 22, 2010, 07:11:14 AM »

Labour losing some ground again with Yougov:

40-40-11

followed by a

40-38-11

I'd say Labour will definitely be near to a double digit lead before Summer starts though.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #335 on: November 22, 2010, 07:42:22 PM »

ICM
38 (+2)
36 (-3)
14 (-2)

ICM last had the LDs at 14% when Ming Campbell resigned, so this ties for the lowest LD score from ICM since the 30th March 2001.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #336 on: November 22, 2010, 08:22:10 PM »

ICM
38 (+2)
36 (-3)
14 (-2)

ICM last had the LDs at 14% when Ming Campbell resigned, so this ties for the lowest LD score from ICM since the 30th March 2001.

They have truly screwed themselves against a wall.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #337 on: November 22, 2010, 08:31:05 PM »

Random aside, but I heard the redistricting in the UK after the 2011 census is expected to heavily favor the Conservatives at the expense of Labour (as it heavily favors Labour right now).  Is that true?
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #338 on: November 22, 2010, 08:34:49 PM »

Random aside, but I heard the redistricting in the UK after the 2011 census is expected to heavily favor the Conservatives at the expense of Labour (as it heavily favors Labour right now).  Is that true?

It doesn't work that way in Britain.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #339 on: November 22, 2010, 08:38:47 PM »

Well, I asked a Briton about it on another forum (back in April), and he said that the reason for Labour overrepresentation was the population decline in Labour-dominated areas since the last census, and that they should be expected to lose ground after 2011.
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 #340 on: November 22, 2010, 08:50:49 PM »

Well, I asked a Briton about it on another forum (back in April), and he said that the reason for Labour overrepresentation was the population decline in Labour-dominated areas since the last census, and that they should be expected to lose ground after 2011.

Marginally, maybe. Institutionally the map favors Labour, but this is because the map is drawn based on population, not voters, and voters in really Labour areas are almost universally less likely to turn out than voters in Conservative areas (really Conservative seats can get as high as close to 80% turnout while really Labour seats can go as low as 50% turnout).
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #341 on: November 22, 2010, 08:55:50 PM »
« Edited: November 22, 2010, 08:57:25 PM by Refudiate »

Well, I asked a Briton about it on another forum (back in April), and he said that the reason for Labour overrepresentation was the population decline in Labour-dominated areas since the last census, and that they should be expected to lose ground after 2011.

I'm not the best on boundary commision stuff (you're best asking here), but yeah, we're getting new boundaries and the size of the house of being reduced to 600. As far as I know, the reason you've been given for it isn't entirely true, just partially. Scotland and Wales are currently over represented heavily, compared to England - at the last count, Wales is set to lose 10 seats, I think and as you can see from the current map, Labour are always safe in Scotland and Wales. Another reason for the numbers "favouring" Labour is the fact that turnout is generally much lower in safe Labour seats than in safe Tory seats, meaning that it takes less votes, on average, to get a Labour MP elected. Nothing, except having pro-Tory boundaries, could prevent this.

And no, we don't do our boundary reviews like the US does. Our last review was before the 2010 election and there was one before the 2005 election (I think) and 1997 before that.

Of course, if the coalition loses the confidence of the house before the boundary commision's finished its review, this is all moot.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #342 on: November 22, 2010, 08:57:47 PM »

Well, I asked a Briton about it on another forum (back in April), and he said that the reason for Labour overrepresentation was the population decline in Labour-dominated areas since the last census, and that they should be expected to lose ground after 2011.

Marginally, maybe. Institutionally the map favors Labour, but this is because the map is drawn based on population, not voters, and voters in really Labour areas are almost universally less likely to turn out than voters in Conservative areas (really Conservative seats can get as high as close to 80% turnout while really Labour seats can go as low as 50% turnout).

I suppose, but that's true in the US, too, and representation here generally tracks the two-party vote fairly closely, or even favors the Republicans.  I guess it must be because Labour still has a fairly strong rural presence (and the Conservatives a fairly strong urban presence) compared to the Democrats and Republicans over here.

Well, I asked a Briton about it on another forum (back in April), and he said that the reason for Labour overrepresentation was the population decline in Labour-dominated areas since the last census, and that they should be expected to lose ground after 2011.

I'm not the best on boundary commision stuff (you're best asking here), but yeah, we're getting new boundaries and the size of the house of being reduced to 600. As far as I know, the reason you've been given for it isn't entirely true, just partially. Scotland and Wales are currently over represented heavily, compared to England - at the last count, Wales is set to lose 10 seats, I think. Another reason for the numbers "favouring" Labour is the fact that turnout is generally much lower in safe Labour seats than in safe Tory seats, meaning that it takes less votes, on average, to get a Labour MP elected. Nothing, except having pro-Tory boundaries, could prevent this.

And no, we don't do our boundary reviews like the US does. Our last review was before the 2010 election and there was one before the 2005 election (I think) and 1997 before that.

Of course, if the coalition loses the confidence of the house before the boundary commision's finished its review, this is all moot.

Thanks for the explanation.  That's probably the best I'm going to get.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #343 on: November 22, 2010, 09:05:25 PM »


I suppose, but that's true in the US, too, and representation here generally tracks the two-party vote fairly closely, or even favors the Republicans.


Don't forget 35% of Britons didn't vote Labour or Conservative. First-past-the-post, like we have in the UK and US, break down when there's more than two parties in the mix.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #344 on: November 22, 2010, 09:08:05 PM »


I suppose, but that's true in the US, too, and representation here generally tracks the two-party vote fairly closely, or even favors the Republicans.


Don't forget 35% of Britons didn't vote Labour or Conservative. First-past-the-post, like we have in the UK and US, break down when there's more than two parties in the mix.

Yes, but it's my understanding that the Lib Dems (and most of the other minor parties outside of N. Ireland) mainly take votes from Labour, so that should hurt them more than anyone else, right?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #345 on: November 22, 2010, 09:20:44 PM »

Marginally, maybe. Institutionally the map favors Labour, but this is because the map is drawn based on population, not voters, and voters in really Labour areas are almost universally less likely to turn out than voters in Conservative areas (really Conservative seats can get as high as close to 80% turnout while really Labour seats can go as low as 50% turnout).

No, it's based on the number of registered electors. But it is true that what 'bias' exists (which is more that it is easier for Labour to win a majority than the Tories, rather than Labour being grossly overrepresented in relation to the Tories - which they aren't at the moment) is down almost entirely to differential turnout.
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 #346 on: November 22, 2010, 09:25:48 PM »

Well, I asked a Briton about it on another forum (back in April), and he said that the reason for Labour overrepresentation was the population decline in Labour-dominated areas since the last census, and that they should be expected to lose ground after 2011.

Marginally, maybe. Institutionally the map favors Labour, but this is because the map is drawn based on population, not voters, and voters in really Labour areas are almost universally less likely to turn out than voters in Conservative areas (really Conservative seats can get as high as close to 80% turnout while really Labour seats can go as low as 50% turnout).

I suppose, but that's true in the US, too, and representation here generally tracks the two-party vote fairly closely, or even favors the Republicans.  I guess it must be because Labour still has a fairly strong rural presence (and the Conservatives a fairly strong urban presence) compared to the Democrats and Republicans over here.


Not true at all. Labour is weaker in the countryside than the Democrats are, and the Conservatives are stronger (much stronger, in some cases) in cities than the Republicans are.

Nor are the differences in turnout nearly so stark in the US. Sure, there are couple of extremes--but bear in mind that the areas with the best turnout are the swing-to-Dem states in the Upper Midwest as well as generally Democratic Upper New England (although uber-Republican Mormonland [Utah and SE Idaho] also has very good turnout).

And the Democrats do well in a lot of wealthy urban areas with very high turnouts, like the white urban seats in NYC, Chicagoland, LA and the Bay Area. All of those places would be Conservative in the UK (a few might be LD, and SF might be Labour, but the point is generally true), yet the Republicans have little to no presence there.

Basically, your core assumptions on this issue are all wrong.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #347 on: November 22, 2010, 09:27:29 PM »


I suppose, but that's true in the US, too, and representation here generally tracks the two-party vote fairly closely, or even favors the Republicans.


Don't forget 35% of Britons didn't vote Labour or Conservative. First-past-the-post, like we have in the UK and US, break down when there's more than two parties in the mix.

Yes, but it's my understanding that the Lib Dems (and most of the other minor parties outside of N. Ireland) mainly take votes from Labour, so that should hurt them more than anyone else, right?

At the election, the 24% for Liberal probably would've gone about 60-40 to Labour, there was some polling on it I think. 6 months later, they're hovering around 11%, probably about 60-70% of which would choose Tory over Labour, that's why they haven't left yet - they don't mind being in coalition with their idealogical opposites. Personally, I don't think they've hit their floor yet.

For the smaller parties, the only obvious one that hurts the Tories is UKIP. You're right though, the others, from the Greens to the BNP to Plaid Cymru hurt Labour in some way.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #348 on: November 22, 2010, 09:37:32 PM »

Basically, your core assumptions on this issue are all wrong.

Mostly wrong anyway. Working out what's rural and what isn't in a country with such a pronounced tendency towards industrial villages and with an unusually traumatic experience of industrialisation/urbanisation is problematic, and there's an unfortunate tendency to define it based on the pastoral idyll rather than anything halfway objective. So large parts of southern England that are clearly not rural in terms of social or economic structures are commonly regarded as such, while it is more or less a taboo to acknowledge the essentially rural nature of most of the coalfields and a lot of early industrial districts.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #349 on: November 22, 2010, 09:38:24 PM »

By "rural areas" I'm referring to N. England and Scotland.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 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 0.058 seconds with 12 queries.