Your chance to predict to vote share

How many seats will they win?

So why the huge difference?

The first YouGov poll to be carried out after the “loongate” story blew up has a dramatically different picture than Survation last night.

UKIP remains on the 14% share recorded in the Sunday Times poll while the Tories edge up 2% to 31% with LAB falling back a point.

The main differences between Survation and YouGov are that the former takes likelihood to vote into account and prompts for Ukip in its main voting question.

YouGov does not ask about voting certainty – an element that has really boosted UKIP in some polls that do. For a large part of Farage’s party’s support comes from the older age groups who are far more likely to turn out at elections.

The prompt issue is one that is a matter of some debate and we know that YouGov has been testing an approach that is similar to Survation.

Currently those sampled by YouGov do not see UKIP listed on the main voting page. To select them they have to tick “some other party” which brings up another page.

It is argued that the absence of prompting depresses the UKIP share and helps boost the Tories.

Another factor that depresses YouGov UKIP shares is the firm’s party ID weightings which reduce, in this latest poll, the “value” of those who identify themselves as Ukip voted Ukip at #GE2010 by more than 75%.

How voters for “others” get their views cut back by YouGov party ID weightings.In latest poll 92 became 23. See.. twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) May 21, 2013

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news

Follow @MSmithsonPB

This has be said many times before but it is worth emphasising – how UKIP is most popular amongst the older age groups – the segment of the electorate that is much more likely to vote.

The chart, based on this month’s Ipsos-MORI data, shows the proportion saying they are certain to vote in each age segment and the proportion saying they would vote UKIP if there was a general election tomorrow.

It has been observed in past elections that the oldest age segment is generally the least likely to change their minds which looks promising for UKIP. Whether that applies in GE2015 could be decisive.

The big reason why this poll, with the LAB lead down to just 3%, looked so bad for EdM is that Ipsos-MORI, uniquely amongst British pollsters, only counts the views of those saying they are 100% certain in its headline figures.

The poll that we see five times a week, the YouGov daily poll for News International, does not even ask how likely it is that respondents will vote. It’s figures today are very different from Ipsos-MORI with CON 30, LAB 40, LD 10, UKIP 14% which will certainly ease the jitters amongst the red team.

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news

Follow @MSmithsonPB

Bigger YouGov shares for Ukip coming up?They appear to now include Ukip in first prompt. See this from @redukipper twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) May 15, 2013

If the firm’s critics are correct then expect bigger Ukip shares

Above is a screen shot of YouGov polling questionnaire which shows that Ukip is now included in the prompt on the main voting intention question.

Until now those polled wanting to say Ukip have had to click the “some other party” option which, it is argued, has compressed the shares for Farage’s party being reported by the UK’s most prolific political pollster.

We don’t know whether this is just a test or a permanent change and I have emailed the firm asking for clarification.

Certainly as Ukip has risen it has become increasingly hard to argue that it shouldn’t be there on the first screen alongside the other main parties

The big question is whether this will lead to bigger shares for Ukip from the firm that carries out at least five national voting intention surveys per week.

There had been a lot of debate recently on the issue led by newbie pollster Survation which started prompting for Ukip last year resulting in bigger shares for the purples in its polls.

If those who’ve been pressing for this change from YouGov are correct then we should see bigger Ukip numbers.

This is today’s YouGov. Whether or not it used the new prompt I do not know.

Today’s YouGov/Sun poll has CON 30, LAB 40,LD 10, UKIP 15

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) May 15, 2013

Update: there’s been no change in way YouGov prompts Ukip

YouGov tell me that there has been no charge in way it polls Ukip.The screen-shot in my Tweet putting it on main prompt was from a test

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) May 15, 2013

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news

Follow @MSmithsonPB

Last week in a thread on which party would come out with most votes at next year’s Euro elections Richard Nabavi suggested that the best value bet was the 10/1 which is still available from Ladbrokes on the Conservatives.

His reasoning was that these are a set of elections where the Tories have traditionally done well irrespective of how they’ve been performing in national Westminster polls.

Even, as the interactive chart above shows, in the dark days for the party in 1999 when Blair’s Labour was at its peak, the blues won nationally on votes. In 2004 it was the same and, as expected, they did well last time out in 2009.

Every set of EU elections since the party list voting system was introduced has seen the Tories come out on top. Why should 2014 be any different?

The betting favourite for next year is Ukip which has managed to seize the opportunity created by the party list voting system. But isn’t there a strong possibility that they are now going to be subject to much greater scrutiny. They’ve won lots of council sea and they now need to perform as elected representatives.

As we are seeing at the moment the backgrounds of those who won on May 2nd are being examined closely by their opponents and unfortunate blogs, Facebook entries and Tweets are being unearthed all the time.

Also the EU narrative is changing and who knows what it will look like in a year’s time?

All betting is a gamble but my view is that the Tories have a better than 9% chance of doing it. The current price is a good bet.

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news

Follow @MSmithsonPB

Just look at how 2010 CON voters view the same sex marriage issue compared with those who now say they are voting for the party. The first group show by 53% to 39% that they are against.

Compare that on the drop down menu in the chart above with current CON voters. They are in favour by 48% to 41%.

Look also at the emphatic opposition from current UKIP voters.

The poll also shows how 24% of those who voted for the Conservatives in 2010 now say that they back Ukip. A coincidence?

It is always dangerous looking at numbers and declaring that these have been the cause of voting changes. What we can say is that the Tory voters who remain have a different response pattern compared with those who have left.

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news

Follow @MSmithsonPB

The EU issue the only big thing dividing the Tories from UKIP

The Conservative Party is one of the oldest and most successful political parties across the world.  It is so partly because it has had in the past displayed a surprisingly flexible approach in adapting to defeat, and partly because it has ensured it dominated the political field on the centre-right, either by eliminating or allying with rivals.  So can it do so against in response to the rise of UKIP?

The formation of the Con/LD coalition went directly against that historic practice.  The breadth of the political ground covered by the two parties inevitably meant that the policy compromises would alienate the Tory right but those lost predominantly to UKIP could not be replaced by voters to the left of the Tories as those who would most naturally be attracted – right-of-centre Lib Dems – will be perfectly happy with what Clegg’s doing.  For the first time in over a century, the right is more split than the left.

That situation’s not something which can easily be resolved before the election.  UKIP has a fairly clear field to make populist noises that individual Conservatives might echo and the Tory front bench might hint at for a future single-party government but cannot do anything about for now.  To some extent, they wouldn’t be able to do anything about the discontent anyway, which is less about specific issues than a general discontent with modern politics.  Still, it’s a wave UKIP’s riding effectively.

What about after the election?  If it results in a Conservative win then the issue probably goes away.  Such circumstances imply that Cameron (or his replacement) has succeeded in attracting many of the disillusioned back the fold.  That scenario is, however, judged by the markets to be the least likely.  Another coalition with Conservative involvement would simply reinforce the existing dynamic.

By contrast, a defeat would force the Conservatives to face the reality of what the split on the right had delivered, as well as the opportunities for healing it.

The biggest division would be the question of the EU but the Conservative Party is now heavily EU-phobic and while that might not be obvious at parliamentary level it’s more openly so in the voluntary party.  Were UKIP to take, say, 10%+ in the 2015 election, that would be taken as a green light by many to advocate EU withdrawal (irrespective of whether that was really the factor that had pushed voters that way).  It is far from unrealistic to believe that adopting such a policy could be decisive for a leadership contender, particularly with the prospect of Ed Miliband signing up to five more years of Euro-socialism.

With the EU question resolved and the luxury of opposition reducing the effect of UKIP’s none-of-the-above attraction, the field would be clear to either repeat the experience of allying with the Liberal Unionists of a hundred and more years ago, or the National Liberals either side of WWII, or to watch them wither, depending on how much strength they retained.  It will take the chastening experience of defeat but it has happened before in Britain, it has happened in other countries such as Canada (which was more of a reverse takeover but the principle was the same), and it could very easily happen here again.

David Herdson

Henry G Manson on how the Tories have made GE2015 easier for Ed

There is a bit of talk as to whether certain Conservative MP are able to be endorsed by UKIP and stand with two party emblems next to their name on the ballots paper. This is now possible under updated election law. This week Peter Bone MP took to the airwaves arguing for joint Conservative and UKIP candidates to take advantage of this:

“There was a tremendous Conservative vote. There were the conservatives that voted Conservative and the conservatives who voted Ukip. The trick is to get us all together again and that’s what we’ve got to do.”

I can see why that would be attractive to the certain individual MPs as they attempt to ride both horses to save their skin. It could be less straight forward for the parties. As we’ve come to appreciate UKIP can now win votes from Labour and in Northern heartlands. If UKIP backed joint candidates with the Tories it could endanger their appeal in many parts of the North where the blues remain so toxic. Look what’s happened to the Lib Dems in the urban North there as a result of coalition with the Conservative. For UKIP to pull it off it would need a suitable number of Labour MPs to enter in a similar arrangement. This is never going to happen. The party simply wouldn’t permit it.

Being backed by two parties would also raise other issue when candidates become elected and arrive in the Commons. They’d potentially experience contradictory whipping operations. Would they be permitted into the 1922 or would their loyalties be questioned? Many Labour MPs have dual ‘identities’ as Labour and Co-op Party MPs. The difference is that the Co-op Party doesn’t stand against Labour MPs and there is no Co-op whip as would surely be the case with UKIP. Conservative and UKIP MPs could pose as many problems as solutions. All in all this seems a clunky response to the fragmented state of British politics and avoiding the bigger problem further upstream – the electoral system itself.

It’s worth casting more than a moment’s glance at what might have been for the blue party. The electoral system that would suit the Conservatives the most right now is the one they campaigned hard against early in the parliament – the Alternative Vote.

This would have effortlessly allowed right-leaning voters to support UKIP first and Conservative second without fear of ‘splitting the vote’ and letting in Lib Dems or Labour.

Instead David Cameron’s Conservatives are now going to have to try and win back the support of UKIP while not alienating their more moderate supporters. Not an easy task. It’s all well and good Boris Johnson arguing that the rise of UKIP is good news for conservative ideas – but here speaks a man who isn’t going to be held account for the outcome of the next general election and has to fret about marginal seats.

What does seem strange looking back is how the official Yes 2 AV campaign went out of its way not to include UKIP in its campaign. Instead as a result it gave the impression of being a liberal middle class enterprise rather than one based on some wider democratic concerns with First Past the Post that would have almost certainly included UKIP. Comfort zone politics at its worst. If an AV campaign and referendum were re-run today I wonder if the result would different with Farage on the platform? I’m pretty sure it would.

Is there any regret at all among Tories that they opposed AV in the referendum? I don’t see any sign of it despite it possibly being a pivotal moment for the party.

Will much of the UKIP vote come to the Conservatives closer to election as some at CCHQ hope? I’m not certain. It’s starting to look like First Past the Post could make it harder for Conservative Party to win power in the years ahead – it’s certainly helped give it a stinking headache with UKIP now.

Despite his support for it, Ed Miliband could well be the biggest beneficiary of AV’s defeat. As with the avoidable collapse of boundary changes, the Labour leader is starting to look lucky.

Henry G Manson