h1

Polling analysis: Rochester is a far far bigger challenge for UKIP than Clacton

October 20th, 2014

UKIP is not winning the 2010 Tory vote like it did in Clacton

Reckless has nothing like the personal support as Carswell

The outcome could be on a knife-edge

I’ve become totally absorbed by the Rochester by-election the outcome of which, either way, will have a dramatic affect on the political environment in the six months to the May 7th general election.

Over the weekend I’ve had a look again at the only poll so far which was from Survation. This had UKIP’s Mark Reckless with an 8.7% margin a large part of which was made up of non-voters from 2010 and a disproportionate number of those saying they voted for “others”.

    In fact if standard ICM methodology, rather than Survation’s, had been used with the same data then the main two protagonists could have been almost level pegging with Labour not far behind. This is because ICM discounts the views of non-voters from last time by 50% and also re-allocates part of the “will vote -won’t say” segment to the party they supported last. Also 2010 “others” would have been scaled down.

UKIP, of course, gave Reckless a free ride in 2010 so there’s no 2010 data relating to the party to link back to.

Lord Ashcroft, who hasn’t polled this yet, is much closer in his approach to ICM and when he does he’ll be naming the candidates in his survey.

Survation was first off with a Clacton poll and followed that up a fortnight ago with its Rochester survey. Apart from the voting ones questions were almost identical allowing us to compare the two sets of data to identify the differences.

The key ones to me are how much worse Reckless’s defection is viewed in Rochester compared with Carswell and how in Rochester the Tories are hanging on to much more of their 2010 vote. The comparisons are shown in the two charts and do not look good for UKIP.

I still think that Reckless is favourite but nothing like the 78% chance that he’s being rated at on Betfair.

Mike Smithson

Ranked in top 33 most influential over 50s on Twitter





h1

Andy Burnham rules out standing for the LAB leadership – get your money on Andy Burnham

October 19th, 2014

EdM’s successor? Could be

In the closing seconds of his interview on the Marr show this morning the shadow health secretary and 2010 leadership contender, Andy Burnham, was asked if he’d rule out standing the the job “in due course”.

His denial was, to me, less than convincing.

He’s come on a lot since his first leadership bid and I was quite impressed with the way he handled the interview.

Both Ladbrokes and PaddyPower have him at 6/1. If EdM does stumble on the the way to May 7th or in the aftermath Burnham looks a good bet.

Mike Smithson

2004-2014: The view from OUTSIDE the Westminster bubble




h1

When ComRes tested impact of prompting for UKIP the views of women barely changed. Male support however jumped by 8%

October 19th, 2014

Two pollsters, three polls, and UKIP shares between 16% and 24%

With all eyes on UKIP polling shares following their by election successes the online survey by ComRes for the Indy on Sunday and Sunday Mirror carried out a test to see whether, as many purple enthusiasts argue, their shares are understated by firms that don’t specifically prompt for the party.

So the ComRes sample was split in two with the first using the conventional approach and the second including UKIP in its main party prompts.

The problem with this is that the sample sizes became so small, down to 782 in one case, that the margin of error increases substantially especially when trying to analyse the UKIP voting subset.

In fact the difference between the two approaches can almost all be explained as standard margin of error.

    With that caveat a big move was apparent between the two ComRes polls. The views of women barely changed when UKIP was prompted – men, however increased their support by 8%

Read into that what you will! Maybe prompting says more about how men and women respond to online polling than it does about UKIP support.

Another difference was that non-2010 voters amongst UKIP support amounted to 7% in normal poll, but 13% in the prompted one.

Meanwhile the latest YouGov, with a later fieldwork period than ComRes, has UKIP down 3% from dizzy heights of last week to a more normal looking 16%.

Mike Smithson

2004-2014: The view from OUTSIDE the Westminster bubble




h1

If Stephen Fisher’s latest GE15 forecast is right LAB could win most seats with just 31.3% of the vote

October 18th, 2014

CON with 2.7% more votes in the forecast get 7 fewer seats

We’ve been here before and we’ll be here many times in the next six months – the way that on national vote shares at least the “system” seems to favour LAB so much.

The latest from Oxford’s Stephen Fisher is in the panel above which illustrates a scenario that could happen.

This is all because the aggregate national vote shares are irrelevant when determining the outcome. What matters, as I keep on saying, is what happens in the 650 constituency battles each held under first past the post.

The rise of UKIP as a fourth force means that the aggregate LAB+CON vote share could be lower than ever before and many seats could be won with fewer than 30% of the votes. The key driver in most of the key battlegrounds is the relative position of LAB and CON.

Much of the apparent bias in the system is down to much reduced vote shares in Labour’s heartlands where the red team finds it difficult getting its supporters out as we saw in the Heywood by-election. Another driver of the bias is that LAB seats have on average smaller electorates than CON or LD ones.

On top of that there’s the effect of tactical voting which could be higher and more complex than ever before. At previous elections LAB voters have been ready in LD-CON battles to use their vote to stop the Tories thus depressing the national LAB vote share. I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats.

    A LAB “victory” on just 31.3% will surely raise questions about the legitimacy of whatever government emerges.

Ladbrokes are currently offering 3/1 on LAB securing most seats and CON most votes.

Mike Smithson

2004-2014: The view from OUTSIDE the Westminster bubble




h1

A Con-UKIP electoral pact? Forget it. It isn’t going to happen

October 18th, 2014

Westminster twlight

Too much pushes the blues and purples apart

Split parties do not win elections, so the saying goes.  Nor, by extension, do parties whose natural support base is divided between parties, particularly under FPTP – which is why from time to time we hear calls from some on the right-of-centre for an electoral pact between the Conservatives and UKIP, who look at the 45-50% that the two parties poll between them and dream of landslide governments rather than impotent oppositions.  It won’t happen, not least because such dreams ignore certain inconvenient realities.

One such reality is that there is a very clear message from history as to what electoral pacts mean, which is the end of at least one party as an independent entity.  That may come through merger, takeover or reduction to irrelevance but come it invariably does.  Where one party is clearly the dominant member of an alliance, a pact effectively means a delayed takeover.  The Conservatives have particularly strong form on this, having taken over the Liberal Unionists that split from Gladstone, the National Liberals that split in 1931, and dominated the Lloyd George-led government between 1918 and when it fell at a time of their choosing.

That, of course, is one of the main reasons why the larger party agrees to it in the first place and why those Conservative supporters who advocate it now, do so.  UKIP would in effect be given a certain number of MPs while their capacity to operate independently would be slowly extinguished.  The dynamics are simple: once there are several dozen (say) UKIP MPs whose future presence in the House relies on continuing to be given a free run by the Tories, it becomes extremely difficult for them to act in such a way that would provoke an ending of the alliance.

However, that self-same dynamic is also the biggest stumbling block to such a deal.  Many UKIP activists left the Conservatives because of disillusionment at the policies and tone of its leadership.  Why then set their new party on a course back to where they started?  For those who left a party of government for one on the fringes, a share of power alone is an insufficient inducement otherwise they’d have stayed in the first place.

This is before you add in the antipathies, egos, pride and other personal factors that would prevent the two from working amicably together.  Not the least of the problems would be identifying which party would stand in which constituency; decisions that are fraught with the capacity for upsetting the candidates and foot-soldiers of each party alike.

That’s compounded by the fact that many UKIP voters – and to a lesser extent, activists – don’t identify with the Conservatives as fellow-travellers who’ve simply slipped from the right path.  An increasing number are ex-Labour or at least have values that align with where Labour once was.  We know from the polling that a sizable minority prefer Labour to Tories and in the absence of a UKIP candidate (which would be the case in most constituencies were there a pact), those UKIP votes would transfer red rather than blue, if they get cast at all.  The electoral benefits of any Con-UKIP pact would be far lower than a simple sum of the scores would suggest.

    There is one alternative that may prove attractive, however, if the Tories have the ambition and audacity to seize it: a pre-election advocacy of PR. 

If implemented, it would do away with the need for pacts.  It would also greatly diminish the effectiveness of negative campaigning and tactical voting – two aspects of modern politics that have proven so corrosive to public trust. Getting in ahead of the game may also be tactically wise in case the election produces a particularly unfair result.  On the other hand, if a hung parliament results, virtually all the minor parties might be expected to view PR with favour and with a manifesto commitment, there’d be no need for a referendum.

The new four-party line-up also fundamentally changes the political battlefield, as the Conservatives now have one potential ally to either side of them on the spectrum while Labour doesn’t.  That might change if the Greens could up their support but on their current polling they’d still be of only marginal significance under most systems of PR.

What is clear is that despite the damage FPTP does both parties, there won’t be a pact before 2015: there are just too many things pushing UKIP and the Tories apart.

David Herdson



h1

Local By-Election Results : October 16th 2014

October 17th, 2014

Harper Green on Bolton (Lab Defence)
Result: Labour 1,176 (51% -1%), UKIP 777 (33% +15%), Conservative 282 (12% -11%), Greens 38 (2% -2%), Liberal Democrats 28 (1% -3%), Independent 19 (1%)
Labour HOLD with a majority of 399 (18%) on a swing of 8% from Labour to UKIP

Towyn on Conwy (Con Defence)
Result: Conservative 143 (25%), Independent (Smith) 116 (20%), Independent (Johnson) 104 (18%), Labour 98 (17%), Independent (Griffiths) 69 (12%), Independent (Corry) 43 (8%)
Conservative HOLD with a majority of 27 (5%)
Total Independent vote: 332 (58%)

Medworth on Fenland (Con Defence)
Result: Conservatives 257 (45% -14%), UKIP 201 (35%), Labour 79 (14% -17%), Liberal Democrats 24 (4% -5%), Independent 15 (3%)
Conservative HOLD with a majority of 56 (10%) on a swing of 25% from Conservative to UKIP

Tudor on Kingston upon Thames (Con Defence)
Result: Conservatives 1,062 (41%), Liberal Democrats 725 (28%), Labour 314 (12%), UKIP 269 (10%), Greens 219 (8%)
Conservative HOLD with a majority of 337 (13%)

Helmshore on Rossendale (Con Defence)
Result: Conservatives 771 (48% -10%), Labour 444 (28% -14%), UKIP 364 (24%)
Conservative HOLD with a majority of 327 (20%) on a swing of 2% from Labour to Conservative

Oakham South West (Con Defence) and Whissendine (Ind Defence) on Rutland
Oakham South West
Result: Conservatives 240 (52%), Independent 177 (38%), Liberal Democrats 43 (9%)
Conservative HOLD with a majority of 63 (14%)

Whissendine
Result: Liberal Democrats 192 (52%), Conservatives 179 (48% +6%)
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Independent with a majority of 13 (4%)

Sheppey Central on Swale (Con Defence)
Result: UKIP 831 (58%), Conservatives 324 (23%), Labour 240 (17%), Loonies 27 (2%)
UKIP GAIN from Conservative with a majority of 507 (35%)

West Thurrock and South Stifford on Thurrock (Lab Defence)
Result: Labour 903 (50% +3%), UKIP 621 (35% +1%), Conservatives 270 (15% unchanged)
Labour HOLD with a majority of 282 (15%) on a swing of 1% from UKIP to Labour

Westfield on City of York (Lib Dem defence from Labour defection)
Result: Liberal Democrats 1,804 (60%), Labour 588 (20%), UKIP 398 (13%), Conservatives 113 (4%), Greens 87 (3%), English Democrats 5 (0%)
Liberal Democrat HOLD with a majority of 1,546 (40%)



h1

Polling analysis: UKIP’s hurting CON even more in the marginals than it was 2 months ago

October 17th, 2014

Latest churn figures from main parties to Farage’s

One of the great things about the Lord Ashcroft marginals polling is the sheer scale of it and the size of the overall samples. He tends to operate with samples of 1,000 meaning that the latest batch involved talking on the phone to a total of 11,002 people which is the equivalent to almost a year’s worth of ICM or Ipsos-MORI polls.

The benefit is that the aggregate data from all the constituencies provides large enough sub-samples on which to do analysis and in this post I look at the breakdown of the UKIP vote. The data in the chart above is produced by taking the total number of UKIP voters and dividing that by the numbers who voted for CON, LAB and LD at GE10.

I did a similar exercise with Lord A’s August round when he was polling CON held seats with smaller majorities.

As can be seen far more 2010 CON voters in these battleground seats have switched to UKIP than 2010 LAB or LD ones.

The comparison between the two two of polling is even more pronounced with the percentage of CON>UKIP switchers in the UKIP total up by more than eight points. The LAB switching is up by nothing like the same scale. LD switching, meanwhile, drops a bit.

How’s this going to shake out on May 7th next year? We do see in this polling that when asked to think about their own seats some UKIP supporters switch to the main two parties but not that many. My reading is that the UKIP will decline because the high-octane campaigning by both the red and blue teams will present the fight as a choice between them.

In other less marginal seats I expect that UKIP will hold up far more.

Mike Smithson

2004-2014: The view from OUTSIDE the Westminster bubble




h1

The polling’s not all good for UKIP: See this worrying data for Farage’s party from YouGov and Ipsos-MORI

October 17th, 2014

Last month Ipsos-MORI had them the most disliked & least liked party

Could we be seeing the basis for anti-purple tactical voting?

In a week that has been dominated by positive GE15 voting numbers for YouGov there’s some other data from firm for the Economist, see top panel, that might make uncomfortable reading. The way the party is perceived by a representative sample of voters.

Those numbers are not good for the party and raise the prospect, I’d suggest, of anti-UKIP tactical voting with people not supporting their allegiance but the party most able to beat Farage’s party. It was suggested that this might have happened in the Newark by-election in June.

Several people who were “on the ground” during that by-election have told me how they’d come across quite a level a “cross-over” voting for this purpose with ex-LD and even ex-LAB voters shifting to CON for the election to stop UKIP. We have seen this in the past where the BNP have been strong in a seat.

The conditions for this, I’d suggest, are where it looks likely that the purples might be in with a shout and where highly intensive ground campaigning is taking place increasing overall awareness of the election – Rochester on November 20th perhaps?

Much publicised surges can have their negative side.

Mike Smithson

2004-2014: The view from OUTSIDE the Westminster bubble