right
Conservative
Posts: 16,933
|
Post by right on Jan 30, 2017 8:51:57 GMT
I wonder if the Leave vote is as (or more) suppressed than it was in the polls running up to the referendum?
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Jan 31, 2017 14:33:10 GMT
Opinium is rubbish.
|
|
bigfatron
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,711
Member is Online
|
Post by bigfatron on Feb 5, 2017 7:35:11 GMT
Opinium
31/1 - 3/2:
CON: 37% (-1) LAB: 30% (-) UKIP: 14% (-) LDEM: 8% (+1) GRN: 5% (+1)
Opinium always seem to have Labour and UKIP at the top end of the polling organisation 'spread' and LDems and Tories at the bottom end, and that continues; not much to show apart from hints of the LDem mini-revival still inching along...
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 5, 2017 11:40:52 GMT
Opinium 31/1 - 3/2: CON: 37% (-1) LAB: 30% (-) UKIP: 14% (-) LDEM: 8% (+1) GRN: 5% (+1) Opinium always seem to have Labour and UKIP at the top end of the polling organisation 'spread' and LDems and Tories at the bottom end, and that continues; not much to show apart from hints of the LDem mini-revival still inching along... They obviously have a model that is seriously overstating both Labour and UKIP and I feel those figures are not credible.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Feb 5, 2017 12:04:49 GMT
Opinium 31/1 - 3/2: CON: 37% (-1) LAB: 30% (-) UKIP: 14% (-) LDEM: 8% (+1) GRN: 5% (+1) Opinium always seem to have Labour and UKIP at the top end of the polling organisation 'spread' and LDems and Tories at the bottom end, and that continues; not much to show apart from hints of the LDem mini-revival still inching along... They obviously have a model that is seriously overstating both Labour and UKIP and I feel those figures are not credible. I think as someone ( bigfatron?) said the key is to look at the trends rather than the specific figures, and to do so over several polls. Con, Lab and UKIP more or less static (up a point one month, down a point next) with a small trend towards the LDs seems credible enough, as do the basic rankings (Con 1st, Daylight 2nd, Lab 3rd, More Daylight 4th, UKIP 5th LD 6th and Greens 7th). We might be getting to the point where understating LDs and overstating UKIP throws doubt on their respective placings, but I think that is too hard to call. I would not be surprised to see LDs leapfrog UKIP by the May locals, but Stoke could have a bearing on that.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 5, 2017 12:10:42 GMT
They obviously have a model that is seriously overstating both Labour and UKIP and I feel those figures are not credible. I think as someone ( bigfatron ?) said the key is to look at the trends rather than the specific figures, and to do so over several polls. Con, Lab and UKIP more or less static (up a point one month, down a point next) with a small trend towards the LDs seems credible enough, as do the basic rankings (Con 1st, Daylight 2nd, Lab 3rd, More Daylight 4th, UKIP 5th LD 6th and Greens 7th). We might be getting to the point where understating LDs and overstating UKIP throws doubt on their respective placings, but I think that is too hard to call. I would not be surprised to see LDs leapfrog UKIP by the May locals, but Stoke could have a bearing on that. Surely there is no doubt at all about LDs doing far better than UKIP in May on seats won? You have better structure, more cash and more troops. What about total votes? But again that will be down to number of candidates.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Feb 5, 2017 12:17:40 GMT
I think as someone ( bigfatron ?) said the key is to look at the trends rather than the specific figures, and to do so over several polls. Con, Lab and UKIP more or less static (up a point one month, down a point next) with a small trend towards the LDs seems credible enough, as do the basic rankings (Con 1st, Daylight 2nd, Lab 3rd, More Daylight 4th, UKIP 5th LD 6th and Greens 7th). We might be getting to the point where understating LDs and overstating UKIP throws doubt on their respective placings, but I think that is too hard to call. I would not be surprised to see LDs leapfrog UKIP by the May locals, but Stoke could have a bearing on that. Surely there is no doubt at all about LDs doing far better than UKIP in May on seats won? You have better structure, more cash and more troops. What about total votes? But again that will be down to number of candidates. No, don't doubt that, for all the reasons you give, plus the fact that UKIP will be defending a high-water mark, which is always tricky. I meant in Westminster VI if there were a GE tomorrow, which is generally what these polls are measuring. I expect UKIP to do badly in May and I expect that to lead to a fall in Westminster VI due to a sense that their time has past.
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,417
|
Post by Crimson King on Feb 5, 2017 15:16:49 GMT
It's certainly possible that if we do well (or more relevantly get good headlines)and ukip do poorly in the Locals, we could overtake them after, if we havent before
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Feb 5, 2017 17:49:45 GMT
Dangerously shocking figures for Corbyn in this Opinium survey (online, 2002 electors): opinium.co.uk/may-leads-corbyn-range-measures/The most striking is on the question who is/would make a capable prime minister? May scores a net +26, Corbyn gets a net -42. It always used to be the Conservatives who, when in opposition, had poorer scores for their leader than for their party. It happened to Heath, Thatcher, Hague, IDS, Howard and Cameron. Wilson, Smith and Blair generally outperformed Labour whilst in opposition. The very poor poll performance by Corbyn clearly needs to improve, otherwise Labour might change leader to someone less unelectable.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 5, 2017 17:53:01 GMT
Dangerously shocking figures for Corbyn in this Opinium survey (online, 2002 electors): opinium.co.uk/may-leads-corbyn-range-measures/The most striking is on the question who is/would make a capable prime minister? May scores a net +26, Corbyn gets a net -42. It always used to be the Conservatives who, when in opposition, had poorer scores for their leader than for their party. It happened to Heath, Thatcher, Hague, IDS, Howard and Cameron. Wilson, Smith and Blair generally outperformed Labour whilst in opposition. The very poor poll performance by Corbyn clearly needs to improve, otherwise Labour might change leader to someone less unelectable. By what mechanism and triggered by whom?
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Feb 5, 2017 18:03:04 GMT
Dangerously shocking figures for Corbyn in this Opinium survey (online, 2002 electors): opinium.co.uk/may-leads-corbyn-range-measures/The most striking is on the question who is/would make a capable prime minister? May scores a net +26, Corbyn gets a net -42. It always used to be the Conservatives who, when in opposition, had poorer scores for their leader than for their party. It happened to Heath, Thatcher, Hague, IDS, Howard and Cameron. Wilson, Smith and Blair generally outperformed Labour whilst in opposition. The very poor poll performance by Corbyn clearly needs to improve, otherwise Labour might change leader to someone less unelectable. By what mechanism and triggered by whom? Yes, you are right, Carlton! The Labour Party has made it very difficult for itself! As we get closer to an election, if Corbyn's and Labour's poll numbers and election performances continue to deteriorate, even the hurdles that Labour has created for itself may, I fear, be insufficient to prevent reality from coming to the fore internally?
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Feb 6, 2017 12:09:05 GMT
The detail of the Opinium poll is interesting. Compared with 2015 it shows a pro-Tory swing from Labour of 8% in Scotland but a pro-Labour swing from Tory of 1.25% in England. That would imply Labour gaining 14 Tory seats in England & Wales.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 6, 2017 15:13:07 GMT
The detail of the Opinium poll is interesting. Compared with 2015 it shows a pro-Tory swing from Labour of 8% in Scotland but a pro-Labour swing from Tory of 1.25% in England. That would imply Labour gaining 14 Tory seats in England & Wales. If you are prepared to accept their figures as being absolutely accurate (which I am not) an implied swing as small as only 1.25% is was inside the normal margin of error and might not actually exist, or might indeed be in the other direction? Then we have the position of there being no uniform swing across the whole of England but very variable swings in each direction. What might we guess at? And guess is the operative word! I would contend that the swing might be larger than this in the North West (especially Merseyside and Greater Manchester) and Greater London (parts of ). In fact those areas might encompass most of or even all of the projected swing but concentrated at a higher level there. That might or might not result in seat gains in each or both of those areas, or merely better Labour majorities in seats they already hold? There really is no implication of a projected 14-seat gain..........Really, really not!
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Feb 6, 2017 15:20:06 GMT
I don't really disagree with that - but a swing of 1.25% across England & Wales would lead to 14 gains. In reality, Labour could expect a bigger swing in those seats where their MPs enjoy first term incumbency - ie the seats gained from the Tories and LibDems in 2015. This would be offset by smaller swings elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Feb 7, 2017 14:20:56 GMT
Opinium...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 20:23:54 GMT
14-17th March
Con 41 Lab 28 UKIP 13 LD 8 Greens 3
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Mar 20, 2017 11:16:15 GMT
Yes well.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Apr 15, 2017 19:18:20 GMT
Con 38% Lab 29% UKIP 14% LD 7%
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Apr 15, 2017 19:20:28 GMT
Completely at variance with new Comres poll also out today
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,675
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 15, 2017 20:15:21 GMT
Opinium is crap, but probably not *quite* as bad as ComedyResults.
|
|