mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 22,364
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Dec 15, 2016 12:15:59 GMT
Ka-ching!
We need a few more like that, which might indicate a post-by-election fall-back to around 12%. Good figures also for Farron, who then needs to put on 1% per year average to see us at 15% for 2020 GE.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Dec 18, 2016 2:49:48 GMT
If I had to predict the Tory share at the next election (assuming Corbyn is still Labour leader), I'd probably say around 38% again, the same as before, despite the polls currently putting them in the 40s. I think that when a party is heading for an easy victory they usually tend to slightly underperform expectations, probably because some voters can't see the point of giving a party an even bigger win than the one they're clearly heading for. There was some evidence of this in both 1983 and 1997, and perhaps also 2001.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2017 17:15:17 GMT
Latest via Number Cruncher -
EDIT:
Note Matt Singh's important caveat -
But this poll was actually conducted before Tuesday, meaning that it won’t reflect any impact from the speech. So while these topline numbers (and a reduction in the gap between Corbyn and May in satisfaction ratings) are interesting, they may be a bit out of date already…
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Jan 19, 2017 18:08:32 GMT
Raw data figures
Con 42 Lab 31 LD 14 UKIP 6
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 23, 2017 21:31:59 GMT
Raw data figures Con 42 Lab 31 LD 14 UKIP 6 Interesting. Very.
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Feb 16, 2017 17:43:00 GMT
Latest Ipsos Mori
Con 40 minus 3 Lab 29 minus 2 LDem 13 plus 2 UKIP 9 plus 3 Nats 6 Green 4
Raw data Con 38 Lab 29 LDem 14 UKIP 7 Nats 7 Green 4
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 16, 2017 18:33:28 GMT
Latest Ipsos Mori Con 40 minus 3 Lab 29 minus 2 LDem 13 plus 2 UKIP 9 plus 3 Nats 6 Green 4 Raw data Con 38 Lab 29 LDem 14 UKIP 7 Nats 7 Green 4 Gold standard!
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,117
Member is Online
|
Post by Jack on Feb 16, 2017 19:13:19 GMT
It's like Cleggmania all over again!
|
|
hedgehog
Non-Aligned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 6,826
|
Post by hedgehog on Mar 16, 2017 12:21:29 GMT
Fieldwork 10/14th march
Cons 43 +3 Lab 30 +1 Lib Dems 13 = UKIP 6 -3 Green 4 =
Worrying figures for UKIP
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 12:29:22 GMT
Fieldwork 10/14th march Cons 43 +3 Lab 30 +1 Lib Dems 13 = UKIP 6 -3 Green 4 = Worrying figures for UKIP Other straws in the wind: YouGov has them below 10% as well.
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,117
Member is Online
|
Post by Jack on Mar 16, 2017 12:37:44 GMT
Labour at 30?
Definite outlier, this one.
|
|
|
Post by bigfatron on Mar 16, 2017 12:52:54 GMT
MORI tend to favour Labour versus other polling companies, however the trend of them recovering a little bit is consistent across most pollsters
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Mar 16, 2017 14:14:45 GMT
MORI tend to favour Labour versus other polling companies, however the trend of them recovering a little bit is consistent across most pollsters That's not really the case. Mori tend to be more volatile than other pollsters and have produced some of Labour's lowest as well as their highest scores. I agree there are some signs of Labour moving up a bit - Yougov's 27% this week was their highest rating with that pollster since late November.
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Mar 16, 2017 16:20:53 GMT
Raw data has Lib Dems at 15% in this poll UKIP at 5% Con and Lab no change Scotland subsample SNP 43 Con 24 LD 14 Lab 13 Green 5
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Mar 17, 2017 16:36:41 GMT
Raw data has Lib Dems at 15% in this poll UKIP at 5% Con and Lab no change Scotland subsample SNP 43 Con 24 LD 14 Lab 13 Green 5 Raw data is entirely meaningless so there is little point quoting it because the sample is entirely random and will likely not resemble the electorate at large. I imagine the Lib Dems do better in the raw data than they do in the weighted data probably because they do significantly better with the kind of people likely to answer polls than those who typically don't while the converse is likely true of UKIP. Also people who typically only vote in general election years and don't pay much attention to politics other than that are disproportionately likely to vote either Tory or Labour.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,540
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 17, 2017 16:38:31 GMT
Scottish "subsamples" really are meaningless in GB-wide polls, too.
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Mar 17, 2017 16:39:06 GMT
Scottish "subsamples" really are meaningless in GB-wide polls, too. Agreed
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Mar 17, 2017 17:07:31 GMT
Raw data has Lib Dems at 15% in this poll UKIP at 5% Con and Lab no change Scotland subsample SNP 43 Con 24 LD 14 Lab 13 Green 5 Raw data is entirely meaningless so there is little point quoting it because the sample is entirely random and will likely not resemble the electorate at large. I imagine the Lib Dems do better in the raw data than they do in the weighted data probably because the Lib Dems do significantly better with the kind of people likely to answer polls than those who typically don't while the converse is likely true of UKIP. Also people who typically only vote in general election years and don't pay much attention to politics other than that are disproportionately likely to vote either Tory or Labour. All the pollsters are weighting the Lib Dems down but it is not for the reason you hypothesise . In the last parliament the pollsters weighted the Lib Dems up from the raw data which turned out to be an error ( unlike in previous parliaments ). In response to that they have now changed to deliberately weighting Lib Dems down . IMHO this is an error , the unusual circumstances in the last Parliament of Lib Dems in government no longer apply so the position is back to as it was .
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,282
|
Post by Sibboleth on Mar 17, 2017 19:24:48 GMT
Scottish "subsamples" really are meaningless in GB-wide polls, too. fyp
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Mar 17, 2017 20:24:09 GMT
Raw data is entirely meaningless so there is little point quoting it because the sample is entirely random and will likely not resemble the electorate at large. I imagine the Lib Dems do better in the raw data than they do in the weighted data probably because the Lib Dems do significantly better with the kind of people likely to answer polls than those who typically don't while the converse is likely true of UKIP. Also people who typically only vote in general election years and don't pay much attention to politics other than that are disproportionately likely to vote either Tory or Labour. All the pollsters are weighting the Lib Dems down but it is not for the reason you hypothesise . In the last parliament the pollsters weighted the Lib Dems up from the raw data which turned out to be an error ( unlike in previous parliaments ). In response to that they have now changed to deliberately weighting Lib Dems down . IMHO this is an error , the unusual circumstances in the last Parliament of Lib Dems in government no longer apply so the position is back to as it was . Not really true the pollster's final polls had the Lib Dems way too high into 2010 if they'd underweighted them instead of overweighting them them they'd have probably have got their % of the vote more or less correct. Plus in 2015 the pollsters broadly got the Lib Dem share of the vote correct it was just Con and Lab they got horribly wrong. The Lib Dems are probably about at 10% nationally (having recovered slightly almost entirely at the expense of Labour) which is roughly what their polling average points to.
|
|