Tuesday, November 4, 2014

SNP extend lead in Scot Goes Pop Poll of Polls to 20.6%

There have been four new Scottish subsamples published since the last Poll of Polls update, showing SNP leads over Labour ranging from 6% to (ahem) 41%.  The latter was recorded in yesterday's Ashcroft poll, although believe it or not the SNP's 56% share of the vote in that poll isn't a post-referendum record - they broke the 60% barrier once.

Today's update takes account of one full-scale poll from Ipsos-Mori, one full scale poll from YouGov, four subsamples from YouGov, two subsamples from Populus and one subsample from Ashcroft.  Enjoy these numbers while they last, because by the next update the Ipsos-Mori poll will have dropped out of the sample, almost certainly meaning that the SNP lead will decrease by a few points.

Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election :

SNP 46.0% (+0.2)
Labour 25.4% (-0.2)
Conservatives 13.9% (+0.1)
Liberal Democrats 5.3% (+0.3)
Greens 4.6% (-0.1)
UKIP 3.9% (-0.2)

(The Poll of Polls uses the Scottish subsamples from all GB-wide polls that have been conducted entirely within the last seven days and for which datasets have been provided, and also all full-scale Scottish polls that have been conducted at least partly within the last seven days. Full-scale polls are given ten times the weighting of subsamples.)


  1. Bookies have cut the SNP constituency odds, but only have the SNP as favourite in three 2010 Labour seats. That includes Falkirk, which has technically been an independent seat since Labour kicked out Eric Joyce.


  2. "...almost certainly meaning that the SNP lead will decrease by a few points"
    Handy to know, just in case I was tempted to think it had something to do with the outcome of any leadership contest that might be in the offing.

    1. No, the one thing that's become abundantly clear from the polls is that the prospect of Murphy as "leader" isn't helping Labour. (It isn't necessarily harming them either, but given that they're miles behind that isn't much use.)

    2. More exposure may harm Murphy and Labour. For someone with his neo-con credentials he seems to be a policy free zone. He appears to be a follower not a thinker.

      As some wag said Jim Murphy has only two priorities 'Jim' and 'Murphy'.

    3. In that case the exposure he gets on Reporting Murphy may help.

      "Hi, I'm Jackie Bird, and THIS is Reporting Murphy. Tonight on your national Murphy news...

      Outrage as Venezuelan woman is named the world's most attractive human being, ahead of Jim Murphy.

      Breakthrough in the search for a Tourette's cure - it's believed the relaxing effect of Jim Murphy's silky voice may hold the key.

      Cat caught up a tree in Stenhousemuir - we'll have all the latest reaction from Jim Murphy.

      And now it's over to Fiona, for the national Murphy weather.

      Well, that's about all we have time for tonight - a very good Murphy to you."

  3. Yes, completely correct and sadly amusing. Is anybody still paying their Murphy licence fee? These people are intent upon destroying what's left of Scottish democracy.

  4. @James - OT but perhaps of interest to you? The good prof has a different slant on the yougov poll which "showed" 52% would now vote YES. He might be right, but I disagree. The data shows that those polled voted 48.5% YES against 51.5% No in the referendum, against the reality of 44.7% YES, 55.3% NO. That's a very big difference. He puts this down to a polling or weighting error as such.

    What do you think? Are we on the other hand, seeing actual polling evidence of the "I voted YES, honest I did" change of heart?

  5. We discussed that issue the other day, although I didn't realise that Curtice had raised it. I must say it's slightly amusing to think about the way we were mocked before the referendum for raising queries about the weighting procedures of polls that showed Yes way behind. We now have one post-referendum poll showing Yes ahead, and suddenly every expert has a pet theory about why it "must" be wrong!

  6. Indeed. If my theory is correct and the poll is accurate as such, it would mean that 4% of the 7% change know and "admit" they voted NO and would now vote YES, whereas 3% of the 7% either forgot they voted NO, or aren't prepared to admit it. Perhaps even to themselves.

    A poll asking people how they voted in the 1997 Devo ref and comparing against the actual result would be interesting, I wonder if anyone's ever done one? Could be a call for the veritable Rev in his next survey!

  7. James - don't take this the wrong way but I'm beginning to love you... at least what you do anyway.

  8. Small point. Never ever use the phrase, "break through the something barrier," again.

    I hate,loathe and despise both it and anybody stupid enough to use it incorrectly. Sound barrier = a barrier past which sound can't go. therefore BARRIER!

    Any arbitrary mark, on both sides of which a thing is equally possible, NOT A BARRIER!

  9. Yeah, that's not how language works, or what 'barrier' means/does not mean. Feel free to hate it, but: crash barrier, Barrier Reef, etc.? A 'barrier' is simply a 'thing which bars' with no connotation of unbreakability. 'Sound barrier' is the lax usage, *not* the paradigm, for the term and its use.