Tag Archive | "pollsters"

Pollwatch: Election campaign is now a war of movement rather than attrition (21 April 2010)

Tags: , , , ,

Pollwatch: Election campaign is now a war of movement rather than attrition (21 April 2010)

Posted on 21 April 2010 by admin

The surge in support for the Lib Dems adds two element of huge uncertainty into the electoral equation

Although details vary between pollsters, the position on the eve of the second debate seems to be that the Conservatives and Lib Dems are fighting it out for first place, with support somewhere in the low 30% range.

Monday night’s ComRes Tory figure, which put them on 35%, would have been regarded as terrible 10 days ago but now almost seems like a good result for the Conservatives.

Labour seems narrowly but definitely in third at the moment, with support somewhere around 26-28%.

What is remarkable so far is Labour’s sangfroid in the face of this apparently disastrous situation, compared with the Conservatives’ obvious nerves. Part of this is of course the ludicrous first-past-the-post electoral system, which could still deliver Labour the most seats in this situation. But the dynamics of campaigns can be brutal when one falls into a consistent third, and it is possible that a spiral of decline could set in.

The bright side of the situation for Labour is that to win this election, something dramatic had to happen – if the campaign ground on as it had been, with the Tory lead falling slowly, Cameron would probably have just about won enough seats to form a minority government.

Now that it is a war of movement rather than attrition, anything can happen. And perversely, despite riding so low in the polls, there seems to have been a slight shift (including among Lib Dem voters) towards regarding a Labour-led government as being a good outcome of the election.

There are two elements of huge uncertainty in the equation. One is to what extent the Lib Dem surge is sustainable until polling day (although if they are still doing well next week, that should be reflected in the postal votes being cast and therefore the result).

This is simply imponderable, and depends on the perceived outcomes of the two debates, and whether the need for an interesting narrative to tell in the media will cause the overdone adulation of Nick Clegg to be replaced by another story – of battler Brown coming through, or Cameron keeping his nerve and steering safely to victory.

The other uncertainty is more measurable. A huge amount depends on who these new Lib Dems are. Several different versions are possible. In the surges of 1974 and 1983, the Labour vote collapsed in the party’s weaker seats, sending the Liberals and Alliance into good second places in a lot of Tory territory.

If this happens again (and is mirrored by a Tory collapse in their weaker seats in urban England) it could produce a lot of Lib Dem first places. On the other hand, if novelty is a big factor, the new Lib Dems may pop up in precisely the places where it can do them the least good – places where there has been little local campaigning activity of the sort that has built up the Lib Dem strongholds. They could add a lot of votes, but few seats.

Mori’s poll for the Standard suggests deep inroads into Labour demographic territory (public sector workers, northern England) that is probably more consistent with the second theory. We must await detailed polls of the marginal seats contested between Labour and Conservatives to get a sense of what is perhaps the crucial question – which of the two parties is losing most where it counts?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/21/pollwatch-election-campaign-war

Comments Off on Pollwatch: Election campaign is now a war of movement rather than attrition (21 April 2010)

Labour’s problems run deep (19 August 2008)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Labour’s problems run deep (19 August 2008)

Posted on 19 August 2008 by admin

If a change of leadership can’t help Labour, as today’s poll suggests, there is little the party can do to regain public support

Whenever you ask someone what they would do in a hypothetical situation, you should not be surprised if the reality turns out differently when it comes to the crunch. The same is true about the things people tell pollsters.

In the run-up to the 1992 election polls regularly found that Labour’s narrow lead under Neil Kinnock became a larger lead when voters were asked how they would behave if John Smith were leader. Just after the election, a Gallup study found that, according to voters, replacing Kinnock with Smith would have been worth about five points to Labour’s share of the vote. In that relatively close election, it would have been enough to make Labour the largest single party in a hung parliament, perhaps not far short of an overall majority.

However, while voters (contrary to myth) rarely lie to pollsters, they quite often lie to themselves. Saying they would have supported a Smith-led Labour party in 1992 was a way of reducing cognitive dissonance for people who were not going to vote Labour at all, but felt as if they should. This in turn stored up a massive potential for buyer’s remorse during the 1992-97 parliament.

In early 2007 polls started to show that a hypothetical match-up between Gordon Brown and David Cameron would produce a worse result for Labour than under Tony Blair. These polls were tapping into a sense of public weariness with Brown, and uncertainty about the economy, and can be seen as a prelude to the government’s current trough. But perceptions changed, twice in fairly rapid succession in summer and autumn 2007 as Brown first built a good reputation for competence and then destroyed it.

Polls about hypothetical situations are not very good at predicting what actually happens when that situation comes to pass, but they can give an insight into how people are thinking about the current state of affairs.

The hypothetical question about a David Miliband leadership in this morning’s Guardian-ICM poll indicates it would make very little difference. This suggests that there are not that many people who are put off Labour specifically by Brown’s leadership, and that the problems lie deeper – with the state of the economy and the spread of a “time for a change” feeling. It suggests that there is relatively little that Labour can do or say in the present circumstances to recapture public support.

If Miliband did seem to make a difference, then that would indicate not so much that there was decisive public support for him to replace Brown, but a sign that there was still something Labour could do to retrieve the situation, rather than sit tight and hope for better economic news. Public feelings about Miliband are, for the most part, only weakly formed and there are a lot of “don’t know” responses – but in most questions measuring Brown against Miliband more people thought “neither” was particularly good. This is frightening indeed for Labour – a lot of people seem to have given up on the party. To repair the damage done by the botched Brown honeymoon of 2007 would require a formidable display of political skills on the part of the prime minister – whoever that may be.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/19/polls.gordonbrown

Comments Off on Labour’s problems run deep (19 August 2008)

Poll position (1 May 2008)

Tags: , , , , , ,

Poll position (1 May 2008)

Posted on 01 May 2008 by admin

London elections 08: It’s been a hard-fought, close-run race in the mayoral election and a great deal is at stake – and that’s just for the pollsters

Polls on the London mayoral election have divided into two types – YouGov’s and everyone else’s. YouGov has consistently shown Boris Johnson with a sizeable lead, while the other polling companies have shown the race to be more or less neck-and-neck. As well as the actual election, there is something resembling an election within the opinion-polling industry as two contrasting methods of sampling public opinion fight it out.

A lot of well-established pollsters would love to see YouGov come a cropper; it is a brash, media-savvy outfit which has trumpeted a record of relatively accurate polling in public elections and even television show votes, and whose method (asking its panel for opinions via the internet) contrasts with the telephone or in-person polling as practised by most of the others. The anonymity of the net may produce less inhibited, or more considered, answers than person-to-person interviews, but getting a really representative sample requires quite a bit of weighting and tweaking. The same, to some extent, is true of person-to-person polling. Pollsters now need to get two things right – a good sample, and an accurate set of adjustments.

Polling is perhaps particularly difficult in London, with its enormous diversity, fast-changing population and Britain’s largest proportion of people eligible but unregistered to vote. Pollsters also have to screen for likely turnout, estimates of which range widely between the 37% reached last time to a scarcely credible 60%. Then, because the second preferences of people who voted other than for the top two will be reallocated, they need to get a representative view on how the Lib Dems, Greens and others will line up in the final stage of the count, which is difficult on a small sample.

Boris Johnson has to win pretty big for YouGov to have bragging rights about this election. Their mayoral campaign polls put him between six and 13 points ahead, and their last poll indicated a margin of 7 points. If the result is Johnson by more than six points, YouGov can chalk up the impressive feat of polling in an election in very difficult territory for pollsters. More conventional polling companies would need to ask themselves why they had the election so wrong, as the excuse of a late swing is probably not available, in contrast to the last big polling fiasco of 1992.

A Livingstone win, on the other hand, would vindicate Ipsos Mori and ICM, which have shown the late stage of the race to be extremely close. It would certainly not discredit YouGov, or internet polling, but it would at least require a bit of a rethink of its sampling and weighting techniques. However, a Johnson win by something like two to five percentage points would leave the clash of the pollsters unresolved.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/01/pollposition

Comments Off on Poll position (1 May 2008)