The huge variation in these results says a lot about their accuracy.
No it says a lot about their methodology.
Always look at the data, the raw numbers and then the actual published results weighted and adjusted. For some pollsters the difference is huge - and it rarely boosts UKIP as there is a lot of referencing back to 2010 voting patterns.
Maybe Survation just believes what people are telling them more!:D
Just took a look at the Suvation prediction (Oct 3rd) for the Heywood by-election.
Prediction: Labour 50% / UKIP 32% / Con 13% / LD 4% / Green 3% .....Actual: Labour 41% / UKIP 39% / Con 12% / LD 5% / Green 3%
That's somewhat out with just a few days to go.
So maybe they adjusted their "models" to give UKIP more of a bias, and lessen Labour accordingly.
But who knows? The Heywood situation had a low Labour turn-out (probably), while Clacton had the actual ex-Conservative MP now as UKIP instead. Loyalty played a huge part.
I don't see any of these by-elections as being representative of national polling. They are too atypical.
A poor Labour conference and Cameron opening his goody bag of inducements six months early hasn't given the Tories the neccessary bounce they require for a majority.
His party is (currently) leading. He, "the guy", is not. In fact I think he is at the bottom of the leader ratings. "The guy" is dragging his party down.
His party is (currently) leading. He, "the guy", is not. In fact I think he is at the bottom of the leader ratings. "The guy" is dragging his party down.
Well in that case it's rather fortunate that in this country we elect a political party, and not an individual based on his 'charisma' or personality or looks or the way he sounds and other such stuff isnt it?
Of course if you are amongst those who place great importance on such things you might prefer these forums.
His party is (currently) leading. He, "the guy", is not. In fact I think he is at the bottom of the leader ratings. "The guy" is dragging his party down.
The thing is though, that public perception doesn't necessarily translate into reality when it comes to it. In fact it is arguable that Miliband has been a very effective leader of the opposition. He succeeded in opposing the bombing action against Syria. He effectively forced Cameron into setting up Leveson.
Perceptions can change quite easily and it is quite usual for the sitting PM to have a higher personal rating than the leader of the opposition.
The critical things in deciding this election will be events, but the way the parties spin things will also be important and i do think it is a mistake for the Tories to place to much emphasis on the Ed Miliband rating. When I saw David Cameron warning that a vote for UKIP will lead to Miliband becoming leader, shock horror, I thought he looked a bit smug and couldn't resist thinking, well how would that be so much worse than what we've got now?
The thing is though, that public perception doesn't necessarily translate into reality when it comes to it. In fact it is arguable that Miliband has been a very effective leader of the opposition. He succeeded in opposing the bombing action against Syria. He effectively forced Cameron into setting up Leveson.
Perceptions can change quite easily and it is quite usual for the sitting PM to have a higher personal rating than the leader of the opposition.
The critical things in deciding this election will be events, but the way the parties spin things will also be important and i do think it is a mistake for the Tories to place to much emphasis on the Ed Miliband rating. When I saw David Cameron warning that a vote for UKIP will lead to Miliband becoming leader, shock horror, I thought he looked a bit smug and couldn't resist thinking, well how would that be so much worse than what we've got now?
Yeah it also reminded me of our local Judas DemocRAT candidate in the run up to 2010 telling people in our area that "a vote for Labour is a vote for the Tories" and look how that panned out. the very fact that Cameron is resorting to such GUFF is a clear sign that the Tories are rattled and that they are fighting on two fronts, as far as I am concerned, it's all good.
Yeah it also reminded me of our local Judas DemocRAT candidate in the run up to 2010 telling people in our area that "a vote for Labour is a vote for the Tories" and look how that panned out. the very fact that Cameron is resorting to such GUFF is a clear sign that the Tories are rattled and that they are fighting on two fronts, as far as I am concerned, it's all good.
Looking over the weeks at the "Trend".........Labour on a pretty solid 34% - Tory 29% - UKIP 15% - Lib 7%......... That's what I think, anybody else?.....Going to be very interesting in the run up to the GE.
It will be the Miliband factor the same as it was the Michael Foot factor.
That's what the Tories are hoping, but Miliband isn't faced with a triumphalist, post-Falklands-war national sentiment. He isn't proposing unilateralist, far left reforms such as mass nationalisation. He isn't opposing a united government led by a charismatic, ideological, purpose driven leader and, unlike Foot, his bar to victory is low.: He can win less votes than Cameron, and still win.
So the Tories, if they're wise, ought not to bank too much on the difference in personality ratings, in my opinion.
Ashcroft did ask one interesting new question – a forced choice asking if people wanted Labour & Miliband to win, Labour despite Miliband, Miliband despite Labour, and the equivalent options for the Conservatives. The balance of opinion was 54% Conservative/Cameron and 46% Labour/Miliband, but the splits were interesting. Amongst Tory voters 75% wanted to see Cameron & the Conservatives win the election. Amongst Labour voters only 37% were happy with Labour and Miliband, 47% said they wanted Labour in government, even if it meant Miliband as PM. Amongst Liberal Democrat voters 66% opted for the Conservatives/Cameron, but mostly because they’d rather Cameron remained PM even if it meant the Conservatives in power. Amongst UKIP voters 66% opted for Conservatives/Cameron, 30% saying they’d want to keep Cameron even if meant the Tories, 26% because they’d rather keep the Tories even if meant Cameron.
Ashcroft did ask one interesting new question – a forced choice asking if people wanted Labour & Miliband to win, Labour despite Miliband, Miliband despite Labour, and the equivalent options for the Conservatives. The balance of opinion was 54% Conservative/Cameron and 46% Labour/Miliband, but the splits were interesting. Amongst Tory voters 75% wanted to see Cameron & the Conservatives win the election. Amongst Labour voters only 37% were happy with Labour and Miliband, 47% said they wanted Labour in government, even if it meant Miliband as PM. Amongst Liberal Democrat voters 66% opted for the Conservatives/Cameron, but mostly because they’d rather Cameron remained PM even if it meant the Conservatives in power. Amongst UKIP voters 66% opted for Conservatives/Cameron, 30% saying they’d want to keep Cameron even if meant the Tories, 26% because they’d rather keep the Tories even if meant Cameron.
Very interesting.:)
I think that we will have to see the back of the Rochester by election, the Autumn statement and Christmas before things really start to settle down.
If people are imagining that only Labour or the Tories can win, they split 41-38 for Labour, but if you look closely, nearly half of 2010 Lib Dems opt for Labour.
If that were to be replicated nationwide it would add 8-9% to Labour's vote compared to last time. It won't be replicated nationwide of course, but Labour don't need it to be. The forced choice represents roughly a 5% swing to Labour. You can probably add on another 1% in the marginals.
Comments
Claxton bounce for ukip it seems
LAB - 34% (-1)
CON - 32% (+2)
UKIP - 16% (+1)
LDEM - 9% (=)
That observer poll looks like an anomaly
All the different polls are all over the place. I don't know what to believe.
Ian.
Well the head of YouGov is married to a Labour Baroness. Make of that what you will.
The silent majority has started to speak up. Not to mention the millions of voters always scared into voting Blue or Red over the years.
BIG, BIG things are going to happen and I can't wait!!!
Labour 253
Conservatives 187
Ukip 128
Lib Dems 11
Other parties 71
:kitty:
Do you think these big things will involve a really weak pun on the names of the main parties, because that really is something worth waiting for.
No it says a lot about their methodology.
Always look at the data, the raw numbers and then the actual published results weighted and adjusted. For some pollsters the difference is huge - and it rarely boosts UKIP as there is a lot of referencing back to 2010 voting patterns.
Maybe Survation just believes what people are telling them more!:D
Prediction: Labour 50% / UKIP 32% / Con 13% / LD 4% / Green 3%
.....Actual: Labour 41% / UKIP 39% / Con 12% / LD 5% / Green 3%
That's somewhat out with just a few days to go.
So maybe they adjusted their "models" to give UKIP more of a bias, and lessen Labour accordingly.
But who knows? The Heywood situation had a low Labour turn-out (probably), while Clacton had the actual ex-Conservative MP now as UKIP instead. Loyalty played a huge part.
I don't see any of these by-elections as being representative of national polling. They are too atypical.
Opinium
CON 28%, LAB 35%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 17%
YouGov
CON 32%, LAB 34%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 16%.
Ashcroft
CON 31%, LAB 34%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 18%
Do you mean the guy who is leading in the polls ?
His party is (currently) leading. He, "the guy", is not. In fact I think he is at the bottom of the leader ratings. "The guy" is dragging his party down.
Well in that case it's rather fortunate that in this country we elect a political party, and not an individual based on his 'charisma' or personality or looks or the way he sounds and other such stuff isnt it?
Of course if you are amongst those who place great importance on such things you might prefer these forums.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=45
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=96
The thing is though, that public perception doesn't necessarily translate into reality when it comes to it. In fact it is arguable that Miliband has been a very effective leader of the opposition. He succeeded in opposing the bombing action against Syria. He effectively forced Cameron into setting up Leveson.
Perceptions can change quite easily and it is quite usual for the sitting PM to have a higher personal rating than the leader of the opposition.
The critical things in deciding this election will be events, but the way the parties spin things will also be important and i do think it is a mistake for the Tories to place to much emphasis on the Ed Miliband rating. When I saw David Cameron warning that a vote for UKIP will lead to Miliband becoming leader, shock horror, I thought he looked a bit smug and couldn't resist thinking, well how would that be so much worse than what we've got now?
Yeah it also reminded me of our local Judas DemocRAT candidate in the run up to 2010 telling people in our area that "a vote for Labour is a vote for the Tories" and look how that panned out. the very fact that Cameron is resorting to such GUFF is a clear sign that the Tories are rattled and that they are fighting on two fronts, as far as I am concerned, it's all good.
Would that be a Suvation Polling prediction?
Looking over the weeks at the "Trend".........Labour on a pretty solid 34% - Tory 29% - UKIP 15% - Lib 7%......... That's what I think, anybody else?.....Going to be very interesting in the run up to the GE.
That's what the Tories are hoping, but Miliband isn't faced with a triumphalist, post-Falklands-war national sentiment. He isn't proposing unilateralist, far left reforms such as mass nationalisation. He isn't opposing a united government led by a charismatic, ideological, purpose driven leader and, unlike Foot, his bar to victory is low.: He can win less votes than Cameron, and still win.
So the Tories, if they're wise, ought not to bank too much on the difference in personality ratings, in my opinion.
Ashcroft did ask one interesting new question – a forced choice asking if people wanted Labour & Miliband to win, Labour despite Miliband, Miliband despite Labour, and the equivalent options for the Conservatives. The balance of opinion was 54% Conservative/Cameron and 46% Labour/Miliband, but the splits were interesting. Amongst Tory voters 75% wanted to see Cameron & the Conservatives win the election. Amongst Labour voters only 37% were happy with Labour and Miliband, 47% said they wanted Labour in government, even if it meant Miliband as PM. Amongst Liberal Democrat voters 66% opted for the Conservatives/Cameron, but mostly because they’d rather Cameron remained PM even if it meant the Conservatives in power. Amongst UKIP voters 66% opted for Conservatives/Cameron, 30% saying they’d want to keep Cameron even if meant the Tories, 26% because they’d rather keep the Tories even if meant Cameron.
Very interesting.:)
I think that we will have to see the back of the Rochester by election, the Autumn statement and Christmas before things really start to settle down.
Dream on.
The Tories couldn't get a majority at the last election against a very unpopular Brown.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dra8m44o22/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-101014.pdf
If people are imagining that only Labour or the Tories can win, they split 41-38 for Labour, but if you look closely, nearly half of 2010 Lib Dems opt for Labour.
If that were to be replicated nationwide it would add 8-9% to Labour's vote compared to last time. It won't be replicated nationwide of course, but Labour don't need it to be. The forced choice represents roughly a 5% swing to Labour. You can probably add on another 1% in the marginals.
But Miliband is less popular than Brown, and Kinnock and on a par with Foot! Those three great historical Labour party losers...