Wednesday, January 7, 2015

SNP maintain 15% lead in second YouGov subsample of 2015

Today's second GB-wide YouGov poll of the year shows the Tories drawing level once again, while UKIP slip back still further...

Britain-wide voting intentions (YouGov, 5th-6th January) :

Conservatives 33% (+2)
Labour 33% (-1)
UKIP 13% (-1)
Greens 8% (n/c)
Liberal Democrats 7% (n/c)
SNP/Plaid Cymru 4% (n/c)

I think James may have been onto something in the previous thread with his theory about how the sudden slippage in the UKIP vote may be an illusion.  Many YouGov respondents have completed countless voting intention surveys from the firm in the past, and it could be that UKIP supporters have become used to selecting the "some other party" option, and have simply carried on doing that without noticing that UKIP have now been moved on to the main menu.  This theory is consistent with the unusually high support in yesterday's poll for "others" - a grouping which excludes even Respect and the BNP.

Today's Scottish subsample figures are : SNP 38%, Labour 23%, Conservatives 19%, Greens 9%, Liberal Democrats 7%, UKIP 3%.  If we were meant to discern a new pattern in the Scottish subsamples as a result of YouGov's methodological change, it certainly hasn't become apparent so far - the SNP are retaining an entirely familiar lead, but the Tories and Lib Dems have both bounced back from yesterday's abysmal lows.

Having read Anthony Wells' more detailed explanation of YouGov's tweak, I suspect all that's happened is that they've started to send out fewer invitations to respondents in Scotland, to prevent them having to continually downweight the Scottish sample as a matter of routine.  Ironically, that will simply make the Scottish subsample figures somewhat less reliable than before.

Even though the Scottish sample as a whole hasn't had to be downweighted at all in today's poll, respondents who identify with the SNP have, as per usual, been downweighted sharply (from 55 to 34) to bring them into line with Westminster-centric target figures.

34 comments:

  1. Yes, looks like they have attempted to deal with a higher apparent response rate in Scotland, although doing so hasn't changed the overall VI pattern. Suggests voters of all parties in Scotland are more engaged / more likely to answer polls (than people in the rUK) which is consistent with the referendum.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pants. We'll need to wait a bit it seems.

    "In a few weeks time I will add the results from my research in Scotland, which is currently in the field and promises to be particularly fascinating."

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/predictions-heres-whole-gallery-snapshots/

    ReplyDelete
  3. One thing that came to mind...

    I hope ashcroft doesn't use 2010 weighting in his constituency polls.

    Would make them pretty useless. Although I suppose that could cause complacency for Labour as 2010 weighting would make things look better for them.

    You'd think he'd be aware of the 2010 recall problem?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Funny you suggest that fewer in Scotland may have been asked to take part in the You Gov poll - as I received an invite consistently for three or four before Christmas but none since.

    Interestingly - three of my staunchest unionist friends (yes they do exist) are now determined never to vote for their old parties again having only post referendum realised the lies and deception magnified by the Lord Smiff and Murff Snake Oil Show - a bit late but welcome all the same. I did like Mr Salmond's description of many NO voters who he called "deferred Yessers" prior to the 18th?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I did like Mr Salmond's description of many NO voters who he called "deferred Yessers" prior to the 18th?"

      I voted No and found that particular line pretty insulting, for what it's worth. It was essentially implying that everyone on the No side is an idiot who just hasn't got with the programme yet (but inevitably will when they stop being too stupid/brainwashed to make an informed decision).

      I don't feel the need to insult the intelligence of people who voted Yes - they're entitled to their views even if I think they're wrong. I don't really get what the purpose is in insulting people you disagree with and I'm mystified why anyone thinks that's a good way to win people over.

      Delete
    2. Maybe one day you will become Scottish?

      Delete
    3. Yep, those damn Quisling No voters, eh? They clearly couldn't possibly be Scottish.

      Delete
    4. "I did like Mr Salmond's description of many NO voters who he called "deferred Yessers" prior to the 18th?"

      I voted No and found that particular line pretty insulting, for what it's worth. It was essentially implying that everyone on the No side is an idiot who just hasn't got with the programme yet (but inevitably will when they stop being too stupid/brainwashed to make an informed decision).


      The post you're replying to claims that he described "many" No voters in this way, not "all". Which would simply mean that he's optimistic that there will eventually be enough of a swing for independence to be the majority view. Is that unreasonable? It certainly seems a lot more moderate than Johann's description of support for independence as a "virus".

      It'd be interesting to see the original context of Eck's remark. Does anyone have the exact quote? Googling "deferred Yessers" just gives me seven links, all of them quoting those two words in isolation, and mostly attacking him for saying it.

      Delete
    5. The original quote did (intentionally or otherwise) refer to all No voters. The exact quote is: "We tend to take the attitude that there isn't so much as a 'No' voter in Scotland, there are only deferred 'Yeses'".

      It was at best a pretty bad choice of words.

      Delete
    6. From that context, I agree.

      Delete
    7. @Stoat.
      I would argue that by voting No, you voted to be British, not Scottish.

      Delete
  5. Similar to Calrinda ,I too was invited to give my opinion to Yougov pre Xmas ,nothing for a wile now.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scottish_Skier,

    What is this VI thing? I don't understand the shorthand.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Och,you publish a comment and then the expression Voting Intentions comes to mind immediately thereafter......... I take it that that is what it means?

    ReplyDelete
  8. VI = voting intention. Yep.

    Also, when ICM did a constituency poll for Danny Alexander's seat back in May 2014, they used 2010 weighting.

    You can see the 2010 recall problem in the weighted and unweighted bases; way too many people saying they voted SNP 2010 and far too few lib, even though the Libs won the seat comfortably! Lab and Con numbers hardly need any weighting. Tactical Lib 2010 regretting it as they were SNP but ended up voting in the Tories by voting for Danny.

    Still, even with that SNP were fairly well ahead in final VI numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Let's hope they all continue to use 2010 weighting, as we don't want people getting complacent in the run-in to it. I can't imagine that happening, but you know what I mean.

    Much the same way that the infamous YouGov indy poll lit a light under the unionists.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Much the same way that the infamous YouGov indy poll lit a light under the unionists"

      The thing about this is that I would accept that poll did indeed spur Better Together into action (and probably helped No win) but I very rarely see anyone make the opposite point - i.e. that the overly positive predictions on the Yes side bred complacency.

      I actually think there was a pretty large amount of wishful thinking going on during the referendum on the Yes side - "the polls are all wrong", "the canvassing has us miles ahead", "Yes is going to storm it", etc. There were a few people who went as far as berating anyone who even attempted to argue Yes wasn't flying to victory.

      I don't honestly see what any of that achieved - it might have made people feel better about themselves at the time, but a bit of pessimism would have probably been a better philosophy.

      Delete
    2. ...and as a follow on from that, overly positive predictions about May will also do more harm than good. It's quite possible if the SNP got say 30% of the vote it would be portrayed as a disaster, even though it would actually be a big increase on 2010. Being overly positive about it is basically creating a rod for your own back - setting it up so that anything short of the high watermarks in the polling will be a disappointment.

      Delete
    3. Abon : I couldn't disagree more. Some of the pre-referendum polls WERE wrong in that they were giving the impression that Yes weren't even in the game. That bred fatalism among Yes supporters, and gave undecided voters an excuse not to think about the issues too deeply.

      In the case of the upcoming election, it's even more clear-cut - our greatest obstacle is the London media ignoring us. If we act like a party that doesn't expect to make major gains, that's how we'll be treated - ie. as if we don't exist. There is nothing to gain from talking down our chances.

      Delete
  10. Not so much setting a light under them, they can't be brought out of denial. Given IPSOS, Panelbase, YouGov, Survation and ICM show the movement is almost unidirectional, the bare faced denials from the right wing imperialist and unionist parties is as priceless as Murphy's reverse honeymoon despite the most frantic and concentrated efforts of the media in a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wee Jock Poo-Pong McPlopJanuary 7, 2015 at 8:24 PM

    @AimedPart 6:45:"I voted No and found that particular line pretty insulting, for what it's worth. It was essentially implying that everyone on the No side is an idiot who just hasn't got with the programme yet (but inevitably will when they stop being too stupid/brainwashed to make an informed decision)."

    A bit cynical, surely? If you're on one side of an argument, the grown-up approach might be that those on the other side might yet be persuaded. That's all Salmond's comment implies, I would have thought?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I found it pretty arrogant and insulting too. I wasn't the only one. My thought when I heard that was "Deferred Yes? We'll see about that?"

      Delete
    2. You were a Better Together activist, Stoat! It's a bit late to pose as an ordinary voter now...

      Delete
    3. Did Salmond say all No were deferred Yes? I don't believe so. AimedPart claims Salmond said 'many'. What is many? Many is maybe e.g. 1 in 20 voters; enough to swing it. I know some deferred Yes so Salmond is totally right they exist. If everyone knows the number I do, then then deferred Yes are definitely in the 'many' category. Totals? Hard to say. Many? For sure.

      Obviously, you are not a deferred Yes so Salmond wasn't talking about you. So, how can you be insulted by someone suggesting someone other than yourself might hold a particular opinion?

      Sounds like faux outrage 101.

      I know every single party hopes I might vote for them / views me as a possible vote to varying degrees. Ruth is trying to get my vote, so is Jim... They've even said so on TV and stuff.

      I'm not insulted by that. If I said I was that would make me a prize idiot or a liar. I can feel they insult my intelligence... that I don't agree with them. But I don't feel insulted by them having some hope they might convince me to come around to their cause.

      Delete
    4. James Kelly:

      "You were a Better Together activist, Stoat! It's a bit late to pose as an ordinary voter now..."

      Hey, I'll have you know that I've never claimed to be ordinary!

      Scottish_Skier:

      "Did Salmond say all No were deferred Yes?"

      The exact quote was "There isn't so much as a no vote in Scotland – there are only deferred yesses."

      Delete
    5. wee jock poo-pong mcplopJanuary 7, 2015 at 10:25 PM

      It reminds me of the old saying that there are no strangers-only future friends. Platitude, perhaps, but hardly offensive.

      Delete
    6. It reminds me of Irving Kristol's claim that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. At the very least, it's quite presumptuous.

      Delete
    7. LOL

      He didn’t perchance say something along the lines of ‘I like to think’ beforehand?

      Anyway, a 'No vote' is just 50%+1. A Yes the same. If he'd said 'There aren't any No voters in Scotland - there are only deferred Yesses' you have a stronger case for being insulted.

      But even then you could not argue that everyone (bar a few that would argue black was white, even if that meant their imminent and obvious horrible death) was a not some sort of potential deferred Yesser.

      You personally must have a price. There must be some scenario where you'd vote for Scottish independence. Maybe one where people called Stoat had to pay twice the tax of everyone in the UK amongst other persecutions of stoats, but Scotland gave stoats equality?

      Prices vary. You could find scenarios where even those who feel strongly British to the core would swap sides even in just self preservation if doing so is what would be achieved.

      Ergo, petty much everyone loosely is a potential yesser.

      Note I am a potential No. I can envisage lots of scenarios where I'd reluctantly vote No. I find these highly improbable within my immediate life, but am open to that view changing.

      So, are you No even to the most extreme nuttier case which has no sense or logic (e.g. an English government plan to kill everyone living in Scotland should it not UDI), or are you one of those potentially deferred Yessers As was on about?

      ;-)

      Delete
    8. Well, I suppose I have to admit that there are things that could sway my vote, even if they are very unlikely to occur. Well played, you got me!

      Delete
    9. "The exact quote was "There isn't so much as a no vote in Scotland – there are only deferred yesses."

      *sigh*



      "One of the great assets of the Yes campaign in that we don't regard any section or sector of scottish society as beyond our reach. We tend to take the attitude that there isn't so much as a No voter in Scotland, there are only deferred 'Yeses', and that's been one of the successes of our campaign."

      You actually need that explained to you without the ridiculous attempts to spin it as either offensive or hubris? REALLY? Come the fuck on and gie's peace. You NEVER give up on voters during a campaign just because of what the imperfect snapshots of opinion polling are telling you. You don't do it during a referendum and you don't do it during an election. Polling changes and so do voters minds so while the campaign is running you do everything in your power to reach out to all sections and you certainly don't give up on those voters or concede defeat before a single vote has been cast.

      The last time this nonsense was brought up I seem to recall it was on Stormfront Lite with the potty old bigot Mike Smithson doubling down on his stupidity after he had made a twat of himself desperately trying to spin that the SNP winning the local elections in 2012 was somehow a disaster for us. Needless to say the fact that the lib dems had yet another calamity at those local elections somehow escaped his attention. The public certainly didn't see it as a disaster for the SNP while the lib dems hilariously bad result speaks for itself.

      It simply doesn't matter how out of touch westminster bubble twits spin things when the truth is so blatantly obvious.

      Delete
    10. With all due respect, Mick, that's a bit of an incoherent rant rather than a reasoned argument. If you want to interpret the statement as a bland "we're going to try and convert every voter" comment then that's up to you. Calling No voters "deferred Yeses" implies something completely different to me. The very fact we're having this discussion in the first place (and I'll remind you that I didn't bring the comment up - Clarinda who appears to be an independence supporter did) tells you it was badly phrased at best - as I said above.

      I'll leave the random tangents about Mike Smithson and the "out of touch Westminster bubble" to one side given it has literally nothing at all to do with what I actually said. Ironically your comment is pretty much indicative of what I was complaining about in the first place - i.e. immediately jumping to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with you is a knuckle dragging moron who needs a three paragraph lecture (complete with block capitals) for the temerity of having a different opinion.

      Delete
    11. Why on earth would I care about the level of respect or otherwise a PB troll claims to have for me? You picked the wrong place to try and peddle your fake outrage as it was obvious you would get called out for it and your comical attempts to justify it were always going to sound weak and incoherent.

      Imagine my surprise that you throw your toys out of the pram because it was bleeding obvious this was another Stormfront Lite PB troll being laughed at for recycling Smithson's stupidity. I would link the Smithson 'article' except I know for a fact you are well aware of it since your own response speaks volumes as usual.

      The statement is perfectly obvious in it's intent as some of James regulars have already pointed out. It takes a laughable amount of spin to try and turn a statement expressing a desire to reach out to all voters even if they are No into something offensive. Out of touch spin I entirely expect from the likes of Stromfront Lite and Smithson but it's hardly going to fly here.

      Speaking of feeble spin..

      "The very fact we're having this discussion in the first place (and I'll remind you that I didn't bring the comment up - Clarinda who appears to be an independence supporter did) tells you it was badly phrased at best - as I said above. "

      You think we are unable to read? LOL Here's what Clarinda actually said.

      "Interestingly - three of my staunchest unionist friends (yes they do exist) are now determined never to vote for their old parties again having only post referendum realised the lies and deception magnified by the Lord Smiff and Murff Snake Oil Show - a bit late but welcome all the same. I did like Mr Salmond's description of many NO voters who he called "deferred Yessers" prior to the 18th?"

      So trying to spin that as indicating it was badly phrased is a flat out lie. Clarinda liked the statement because it was indicative of voters who were previously no and now had changed their minds. Why on earth would they do that if they were offended by the statement in the first place? Of course they weren't offended, neither was Clarinda and it was only ever a few out of touch westminster bubble twits and unionist cheerleaders who ever did claim to find it offensive.

      This is almost as feeble as the troll who tried to use an out of context quote from Dr John Robertson to prove their blinkered nonsense about the BBC.


      Try harder. This level of pitiful and petulant shrieking over a perfectly reasonable campaign statement is pathetic even by Stromfront Lite/PB levels. :-)

      Delete
  12. "You NEVER give up on voters during a campaign just because of what the imperfect snapshots of opinion polling are telling you."

    No, not really. There isn't any campaign anywhere that can send out a message that pleases every section of society and every demographic. All campaigns have only finite resources, so it makes sense to target the bulk of those resources at the specific demographics who your research suggests are more persuadable than others. It would have been all well and good talking to those who were confident that they would vote Yes. You might well persuade a few of them, but there's no point in ploughing resources towards trying to persuade them when the results would be negligible. Better to allocate those hours and resources elsewhere where they can be more effectively utilised. Think of it as an investment, I'm sure you wouldn't want to invest money where the risks were high and the returns negligible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, really. Making a very public statement about the intent to try and persuade voters to your side even if they are not at the moment (which translates to converting voters of another party in an election) is simply not the same as the details of campaign logistics and targeting.

      He wasn't saying we must allocate resources without regard to targeting data. He was simply saying we shouldn't take No's for granted as absolutely final and unable to be persuaded. A statement which costs nothing and is a reasonable response to being asked about polling which shows a large number of No's

      You want to see what happens to leaders who do actually make make the fatal mistake of writing off massive chunks of the electorate and taking their intentions for granted? Then look at Romney and his colossal 47% gaffe. Salmond did the opposite of what Romney did in his statement. So I know for a fact which was guilty of being out of touch, arrogant and was genuinely offensive, and it sure wasn't Salmond.

      Delete