Showing posts with label poll. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poll. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
Friday, March 31, 2017
POLL : Devastating blow for Theresa May as overwhelming majority of Scottish public back the Scottish Parliament's right to call an independence referendum
Survation seem to conduct telephone polls in Scotland pretty regularly, but most of them are private polls (probably for a unionist party) that are not intended for publication. Today's Survation telephone poll was commissioned by the SNP, but it's little wonder the results have been published, because they are nothing short of disastrous for Theresa May's "no, not now" strategy, which relies so heavily on using a tame media to build an illusion of public sympathy for her outrageous actions.
Who do you think should have the right to decide if there should be a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and independence? Should it be...
The Scottish Parliament : 61%
The Westminster Parliament : 39%
The Westminster Parliament : 39%
Even before today, the broadcast media had no excuse for constantly parroting the myth that Ms May somehow had Scottish public opinion on her side, but they'll find people laughing at them if they attempt it again. Just in case respondents didn't fully grasp the implications of what they were being asked, the Survation poll posed another question that addressed the issue in a way that left no room for ambiguity whatsoever -
Do you think the Westminster Parliament should have the right to block a plan for a referendum in Scotland, even if it is agreed on and voted for by the Scottish Parliament?
Yes 42%
No 58%
So respondents don't think that Theresa May should even have the right to do what she is attempting to do, let alone that she should actually do it.
Taking matters to an even more advanced level of 'belt and braces' super-clarity, a third question was asked just to check whether the people who didn't want Westminster to have a veto on the principle of a referendum had a completely different view on whether Westminster should be able to decide the timing. Surprise surprise, they didn't. (Or not in any great numbers, anyway.)
Who do you think should have the right to decide the timing of a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and Independence, if it were to happen? Should it be….
The Scottish Parliament : 56%
The Westminster Parliament : 44%
As you'd expect, there's a division between Yes and No voters from 2014 on all of these three questions - but surprisingly large minorities of No voters back the Scottish Government's stance. For example, as many as 36.4% of No voters think Holyrood should decide on the principle of whether a referendum should be held. What's particularly interesting is that there is largely a meeting of minds between Remain and Leave voters - the only question on which they disagree is the one about which parliament should decide on timing, and even on that Leave voters are more or less evenly split.
The Survation poll comes hot on the heels of new survey findings from the National Centre for Social Research showing that by a narrow 51% to 47% margin, the Scottish public feel that Scotland is a nation and should not be forced out of the European Union as a result of a UK-wide referendum.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Scottish voters pulverise Cameron's "it's over for a lifetime" arrogance even more comprehensively, as Survation poll shows 59% want a second independence referendum within the next ten years
More details from last night's Survation poll have now emerged, and of particular interest are the findings on when (or if) a second independence referendum should be held...
Want another independence referendum within the next ten years?
Yes 59%
No 41%
Want another independence referendum at some point?
Yes 80%
No 20%
Survation have also asked the direct question about independence for a third time since the referendum. In spite of introducing weighting by recalled referendum vote (which leads to the Yes vote being significantly downweighted), all three results have shown a race that is too close to call. One of them suggested an exactly level-pegging contest, while the other two - including tonight's - have shown a narrow No lead within the margin of error. All three have implied a Yes vote that is markedly higher than at any point during the long referendum campaign - ie. if Survation had stuck with their pre-referendum methodology, and had not brought in weighting by recalled referendum vote, they would now be consistently showing Yes support above the record high for the campaign of 48%.
Survation are one of three firms to have posed the independence question since the referendum, but are the only one to have found No ahead at any point since September. Part of the reason for that is methodological - YouGov haven't introduced weighting by recalled referendum vote (although Panelbase have and yet still put Yes ahead). It may seem obvious that the case for this new weighting is well-founded, but it's just possible that Survation may be over-compensating, and thus underestimating the Yes vote slightly. One thing that has to be borne in mind is that they are reliant on a volunteer polling panel, which will include a disproportionate number of politically committed people. This means that by upweighting respondents who recall voting No, they may be upweighting too many "hard" No voters and too few "soft" No voters (the latter of whom are more likely to have changed their minds over the last few months). OK, the same thing could be said about absolutely any sort of past vote weighting, but that doesn't invalidate the point - particularly bearing in mind that weighting by referendum vote is a completely untested approach. It's also conceivable that "buyer's remorse" is at play, and that a few people are claiming to have voted Yes because they wish they had done. It wouldn't take all that many of them to distort the result of a poll (and ironically distort it in favour of No).
But the bottom line is that, even if Survation's new methodology is bang on the money, a referendum held now would be on a knife-edge, and nobody would be sure of the winner until the votes were counted.
* * *
I was interested to hear Michael Heseltine on Question Time say how horror-struck he would be if the Scottish National Party ever had influence on the fate of Britain's nuclear weapons - which is tantamount to saying that Scottish voters have no business taking their own view on Trident. The Tory message to Scotland over the last few months seems to have gone like this...
"Scotland, you are LOVED. You are RESPECTED. You are a VALUED part of our United Kingdom. PLEASE stay. Stay until all the seas gang drrrrrry (nice one, Captain Jack). Oh good, you've stayed. By the way, just so there's no misunderstanding over this - WE MAKE THE DECISIONS AROUND HERE. No, seriously, Scotland - SHUT UP."
Survation have also asked the direct question about independence for a third time since the referendum. In spite of introducing weighting by recalled referendum vote (which leads to the Yes vote being significantly downweighted), all three results have shown a race that is too close to call. One of them suggested an exactly level-pegging contest, while the other two - including tonight's - have shown a narrow No lead within the margin of error. All three have implied a Yes vote that is markedly higher than at any point during the long referendum campaign - ie. if Survation had stuck with their pre-referendum methodology, and had not brought in weighting by recalled referendum vote, they would now be consistently showing Yes support above the record high for the campaign of 48%.
Survation are one of three firms to have posed the independence question since the referendum, but are the only one to have found No ahead at any point since September. Part of the reason for that is methodological - YouGov haven't introduced weighting by recalled referendum vote (although Panelbase have and yet still put Yes ahead). It may seem obvious that the case for this new weighting is well-founded, but it's just possible that Survation may be over-compensating, and thus underestimating the Yes vote slightly. One thing that has to be borne in mind is that they are reliant on a volunteer polling panel, which will include a disproportionate number of politically committed people. This means that by upweighting respondents who recall voting No, they may be upweighting too many "hard" No voters and too few "soft" No voters (the latter of whom are more likely to have changed their minds over the last few months). OK, the same thing could be said about absolutely any sort of past vote weighting, but that doesn't invalidate the point - particularly bearing in mind that weighting by referendum vote is a completely untested approach. It's also conceivable that "buyer's remorse" is at play, and that a few people are claiming to have voted Yes because they wish they had done. It wouldn't take all that many of them to distort the result of a poll (and ironically distort it in favour of No).
But the bottom line is that, even if Survation's new methodology is bang on the money, a referendum held now would be on a knife-edge, and nobody would be sure of the winner until the votes were counted.
* * *
I was interested to hear Michael Heseltine on Question Time say how horror-struck he would be if the Scottish National Party ever had influence on the fate of Britain's nuclear weapons - which is tantamount to saying that Scottish voters have no business taking their own view on Trident. The Tory message to Scotland over the last few months seems to have gone like this...
"Scotland, you are LOVED. You are RESPECTED. You are a VALUED part of our United Kingdom. PLEASE stay. Stay until all the seas gang drrrrrry (nice one, Captain Jack). Oh good, you've stayed. By the way, just so there's no misunderstanding over this - WE MAKE THE DECISIONS AROUND HERE. No, seriously, Scotland - SHUT UP."
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
New ComRes poll shows swing to independence in the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway
The political editor of ITV Border has just tweeted the results of a "south of Scotland" poll. It's important to stress that this does not refer to the South of Scotland electoral region, but only to the much smaller area covered by ITV Border - ie. the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway, which between them cover just 5% of the Scottish population, and can reasonably be assumed to be the most anti-independence part of the country.
The rounded headline figures with Don't Knows excluded are Yes 30%, No 70%, which represents a small swing in favour of independence since the January poll when (on the unrounded numbers) Yes were on 28.7% and No were on 71.3%. That does of course assume that the methodology was sufficiently similar this time around to make the two polls comparable - the January poll was conducted by ComRes, using telephone fieldwork.
Is there any way of extrapolating these numbers to get a sense of the national picture? I know that might seem a bit of a redundant exercise given that we've just had several nationwide polls showing significant progress for Yes, but if this does turn out to be a ComRes telephone poll it's of special interest because we've had no ComRes national polls at all, and very few national telephone polls from any firm. The only possible extrapolation method I can think of is to look at the regional differences exhibited in the 1997 devolution referendum, when the Yes vote in the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway was 12.7% lower than the national Yes vote. On the second question about tax-varying powers, the Yes vote was 14% lower than nationally. So if as a Peter Snow-esque "just a bit of fun" exercise we assume that the differential will be exactly the same this time (unlikely), that means this poll would imply a national Yes vote of about 43% or 44% - somewhat higher than suggested by Ipsos-Mori in the most recent nationwide telephone poll.
* * *
UPDATE : Judging from the latest post by "Better Together"/"Non Merci", this was indeed another ComRes poll. Curiously, the headline chosen by the No campaign is "Momentum is with the campaign for Scotland to stay in the UK" - which is a rather creative interpretation of a poll that shows a 1% increase in the Yes vote and a 1% decrease in the No vote. Oh, how I'm going to miss my daily fix of McDougall Logic when this is all over...
* * *
UPDATE II : There's a new (nationwide) YouGov referendum coming out overnight. This will be the first poll to properly factor in any fallout from the Lally/Rowling nonsense. As always, Twitter Kremlinology might offer the earliest clues as to what the poll shows. I'm afraid Nat-Basher Extraordinaire Kevin Schofield was the first to mention it (although to be fair that may just be because it's in his paper!).
* * *
UPDATE III : Judging from the retweets of Schofield's comment by assorted thuggish anti-independence campaign staffers, it's clear that they think they can spin this one in their favour. It's worth bearing in mind, though, that the last YouGov poll in April showed the No lead at an all-time low for the firm of 14 points, so any increase tonight has to be seen in that light. YouGov have consistently been one of the most No-friendly pollsters, and will seemingly be consolidating that status.
More amusingly, it's also worth bearing in mind that the No campaign have until now falsely claimed that the last YouGov poll was in the fact the poll conducted by Progressive Partnership showing a No lead of 20 points - they've been doing that so they could lie through their teeth and pretend that YouGov had shown a six point increase in the lead (in fact both the YouGov and Progressive polls showed a decrease in the No lead). So if tonight's lead falls anywhere between 15 and 19 points, we can sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the No camp doing yet another "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" pivot, and suddenly discovering that the last comparable YouGov poll was the one showing a 14-point lead, thus allowing them to say that the No lead has increased in this one as well. On Planet McDougall, EVERY poll shows "momentum for No" - it's the law!
I was also amused to spot Kevin Schofield almost biting someone's head off for accurately pointing out that the last YouGov poll for the Sun showed a 60-40 lead for No. It's actually normal practice for a newspaper to make the comparison with the previous poll commissioned by themselves, even if the same polling company has conducted a poll for another client more recently. So clearly Schofield is determined to make the comparison with the poll that gives the highest baseline figure for Yes, in order to push the "momentum for No" spin. He's nothing if not transparent.
The rounded headline figures with Don't Knows excluded are Yes 30%, No 70%, which represents a small swing in favour of independence since the January poll when (on the unrounded numbers) Yes were on 28.7% and No were on 71.3%. That does of course assume that the methodology was sufficiently similar this time around to make the two polls comparable - the January poll was conducted by ComRes, using telephone fieldwork.
Is there any way of extrapolating these numbers to get a sense of the national picture? I know that might seem a bit of a redundant exercise given that we've just had several nationwide polls showing significant progress for Yes, but if this does turn out to be a ComRes telephone poll it's of special interest because we've had no ComRes national polls at all, and very few national telephone polls from any firm. The only possible extrapolation method I can think of is to look at the regional differences exhibited in the 1997 devolution referendum, when the Yes vote in the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway was 12.7% lower than the national Yes vote. On the second question about tax-varying powers, the Yes vote was 14% lower than nationally. So if as a Peter Snow-esque "just a bit of fun" exercise we assume that the differential will be exactly the same this time (unlikely), that means this poll would imply a national Yes vote of about 43% or 44% - somewhat higher than suggested by Ipsos-Mori in the most recent nationwide telephone poll.
* * *
UPDATE : Judging from the latest post by "Better Together"/"Non Merci", this was indeed another ComRes poll. Curiously, the headline chosen by the No campaign is "Momentum is with the campaign for Scotland to stay in the UK" - which is a rather creative interpretation of a poll that shows a 1% increase in the Yes vote and a 1% decrease in the No vote. Oh, how I'm going to miss my daily fix of McDougall Logic when this is all over...
* * *
UPDATE II : There's a new (nationwide) YouGov referendum coming out overnight. This will be the first poll to properly factor in any fallout from the Lally/Rowling nonsense. As always, Twitter Kremlinology might offer the earliest clues as to what the poll shows. I'm afraid Nat-Basher Extraordinaire Kevin Schofield was the first to mention it (although to be fair that may just be because it's in his paper!).
* * *
UPDATE III : Judging from the retweets of Schofield's comment by assorted thuggish anti-independence campaign staffers, it's clear that they think they can spin this one in their favour. It's worth bearing in mind, though, that the last YouGov poll in April showed the No lead at an all-time low for the firm of 14 points, so any increase tonight has to be seen in that light. YouGov have consistently been one of the most No-friendly pollsters, and will seemingly be consolidating that status.
More amusingly, it's also worth bearing in mind that the No campaign have until now falsely claimed that the last YouGov poll was in the fact the poll conducted by Progressive Partnership showing a No lead of 20 points - they've been doing that so they could lie through their teeth and pretend that YouGov had shown a six point increase in the lead (in fact both the YouGov and Progressive polls showed a decrease in the No lead). So if tonight's lead falls anywhere between 15 and 19 points, we can sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the No camp doing yet another "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" pivot, and suddenly discovering that the last comparable YouGov poll was the one showing a 14-point lead, thus allowing them to say that the No lead has increased in this one as well. On Planet McDougall, EVERY poll shows "momentum for No" - it's the law!
I was also amused to spot Kevin Schofield almost biting someone's head off for accurately pointing out that the last YouGov poll for the Sun showed a 60-40 lead for No. It's actually normal practice for a newspaper to make the comparison with the previous poll commissioned by themselves, even if the same polling company has conducted a poll for another client more recently. So clearly Schofield is determined to make the comparison with the poll that gives the highest baseline figure for Yes, in order to push the "momentum for No" spin. He's nothing if not transparent.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Your verdict is overwhelming : if the Conservatives were wise, they'd pick Murdo Fraser
Here are the results of the poll on who it would be in the Conservatives' best interests to elect as their leader -
Murdo Fraser 92%
Ruth Davidson 3%
Margaret Mitchell 1%
Jackson Carlaw 1%
This is in stark contrast to the weekly polls by Tory Hoose (which presumably have mostly been voted on by Tory members and sympathisers) showing a very close race between Fraser and Davidson. The latest one, as of this moment, shows Davidson leading by 45% to 42%. If that was anything like the actual result on first preferences (indeed, even if Davidson was slightly behind) it's hard to see where the lower preferences will come from to push Fraser to victory, given that Mitchell and Carlaw are presumably attracting supporters who are even more 'conservative' on the subject of the party's future than Davidson's. Unless, of course, as Tris suggested a few weeks ago, they have such antiquated views on personal morality that they simply can't bring themselves to give even a second or third preference to a young woman who is openly in a same-sex relationship.
Murdo Fraser 92%
Ruth Davidson 3%
Margaret Mitchell 1%
Jackson Carlaw 1%
This is in stark contrast to the weekly polls by Tory Hoose (which presumably have mostly been voted on by Tory members and sympathisers) showing a very close race between Fraser and Davidson. The latest one, as of this moment, shows Davidson leading by 45% to 42%. If that was anything like the actual result on first preferences (indeed, even if Davidson was slightly behind) it's hard to see where the lower preferences will come from to push Fraser to victory, given that Mitchell and Carlaw are presumably attracting supporters who are even more 'conservative' on the subject of the party's future than Davidson's. Unless, of course, as Tris suggested a few weeks ago, they have such antiquated views on personal morality that they simply can't bring themselves to give even a second or third preference to a young woman who is openly in a same-sex relationship.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Poll : If they were wise, who would the Scottish Conservatives elect as their new leader?
We're now getting to the business end of the bitterly-fought Tory leadership contest. Tory Hoose has been conducting weekly polls of its readership (showing a very tight race between Murdo Fraser and Ruth Davidson), but I thought it might be fun to get an 'outside view' as well. I've deliberately framed the question to ask about what is in the Scottish Tories' own interests, not the interests of any other party, or of Scotland itself for that matter. I'm also not going to let you off the hook with a "who cares?" option, because I know from past experience that would win by a mile!
The voting form can be found in the sidebar, and the poll will close in a couple of days.
The voting form can be found in the sidebar, and the poll will close in a couple of days.
Monday, October 17, 2011
No no no, EFTA you
Just to prove I don't operate a policy of democratic centralism at this blog, the poll on which European 'club' an independent Scotland should join didn't exactly go the way I would have wanted! 60% of you voted for EFTA, and just 39% for the EU. If I was to hazard a guess at the main reason, it would be a feeling that the madness of the Common Fisheries Policy can never be properly reformed 'from within'. Which may well be true, but I still feel that consideration is dwarfed by the bigger picture of not having direct representation at Europe's top table.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Progressive Scottish Opinion : SNP support up on 2007 winning share
The latest poll for the upcoming Scottish Parliament election shows a picture somewhere in between the two extremes of Ipsos-Mori on the one hand, and YouGov and TNS-BMRB on the other. Labour have a lead, but of a more middling variety, while the SNP vote is actually well up on 2007. There is also no sign whatever of the modest advance for the Greens suggested by the last couple of polls. Here are the full figures -
Constituency vote :
Labour 43%
SNP 37%
Conservatives 11%
Liberal Democrats 5%
SSP 2%
Greens 1%
Regional list vote :
Labour 44%
SNP 37%
Conservatives 11%
Liberal Democrats 4%
Greens 2%
SSP 1%
Once again, I'd suggest it's worth looking at the combined vote for the SNP and the Tories. For the avoidance of doubt (I'm looking at you, Mr. Labour wind-up merchant "Braveheart"), that is not because a coalition between the two parties is remotely likely or desirable, but because both parties will probably be vigorously opposed to any Labour-led administration for their own separate reasons. In this instance, the combined figure stands at a whopping 48% on both ballots - exactly the same as for Labour + Lib Dem.
However, the huge health warning here is that Progressive Scottish Opinion's track record is...well, rubbish. Their weekly polls in the 2007 race were as mad as a bucket of frogs, and the fact that they're quoting constituency vote figures in this poll for the Greens who (as far as I'm aware) are only standing on the list doesn't exactly inspire huge confidence.
Constituency vote :
Labour 43%
SNP 37%
Conservatives 11%
Liberal Democrats 5%
SSP 2%
Greens 1%
Regional list vote :
Labour 44%
SNP 37%
Conservatives 11%
Liberal Democrats 4%
Greens 2%
SSP 1%
Once again, I'd suggest it's worth looking at the combined vote for the SNP and the Tories. For the avoidance of doubt (I'm looking at you, Mr. Labour wind-up merchant "Braveheart"), that is not because a coalition between the two parties is remotely likely or desirable, but because both parties will probably be vigorously opposed to any Labour-led administration for their own separate reasons. In this instance, the combined figure stands at a whopping 48% on both ballots - exactly the same as for Labour + Lib Dem.
However, the huge health warning here is that Progressive Scottish Opinion's track record is...well, rubbish. Their weekly polls in the 2007 race were as mad as a bucket of frogs, and the fact that they're quoting constituency vote figures in this poll for the Greens who (as far as I'm aware) are only standing on the list doesn't exactly inspire huge confidence.
Monday, March 7, 2011
TNS-BMRB : Labour list vote lead trimmed
Evidently while I was busy noticing that I'd been very slow on the uptake about the last Angus Reid poll, I was being equally slow on the uptake about today's full-scale Holyrood poll in the Herald -
Constituency vote :
Labour 44% (-5)
SNP 29% (-4)
Conservatives 12% (+3)
Liberal Democrats 11% (+4)
Regional list vote :
Labour 39% (-8)
SNP 29% (-4)
Conservatives 11% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 10% (+3)
Greens 6% (+3)
Others 5% (+3)
UPDATE : The ever-delightful Labour wind-up merchant "Braveheart" (ahem) popped along earlier to helpfully point out that I had the SNP's percentage share of the list vote wrong - it should have been 29%, not 33%. I've updated the figures above, and changed the headline to reflect the rather smaller cut of the Labour lead than the one I thought we were dealing with. However, I haven't updated the following text, so it should be read with the changed figure in mind...
It goes without saying that the constituency figures make for sobering reading, but a dramatic reduction of the Labour lead on the list vote (which in theory ought to be the more important of the two) offers some grounds for encouragement at this stage, with the proper campaign period - during which the SNP will have the considerable advantage of the most popular party leader - still to come.
As I've suggested before, the most important figure in this election could well turn out to be the combined support for the SNP and Tories - because even though those two parties are highly unlikely to enter into coalition with each other, they are also both unlikely to enter into a deal with Labour. Anything close to a combined SNP/Tory majority would therefore call into question the viability of a minority government led by Iain "the Snarl" Gray. On the constituency vote in this poll, SNP + Tory support comes to 41%, and on the list vote it comes to 44%.
Overall, these figures at least seem somewhat more plausible than the completely unrealistic Labour ratings that TNS-BMRB reported last time round - you don't need to be an expert in polling methodology to know that Labour were never going to receive 47% of the vote on the list. Indeed, even 39% still seems rather improbable given that Donald Dewar only managed 35%.
Last but not least, if James MacKenzie is telling us the truth when he says that the Greens are merely prudently keeping their options open about a coalition with Labour, he might want to urgently have a word with the Herald about it. They seem to see things in a rather different light -
"Despite likely Green support for a coalition..."
The way things are going, the "vote Green, get Gray" meme could soon be picking up a head of steam.
Constituency vote :
Labour 44% (-5)
SNP 29% (-4)
Conservatives 12% (+3)
Liberal Democrats 11% (+4)
Regional list vote :
Labour 39% (-8)
SNP 29% (-4)
Conservatives 11% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 10% (+3)
Greens 6% (+3)
Others 5% (+3)
UPDATE : The ever-delightful Labour wind-up merchant "Braveheart" (ahem) popped along earlier to helpfully point out that I had the SNP's percentage share of the list vote wrong - it should have been 29%, not 33%. I've updated the figures above, and changed the headline to reflect the rather smaller cut of the Labour lead than the one I thought we were dealing with. However, I haven't updated the following text, so it should be read with the changed figure in mind...
It goes without saying that the constituency figures make for sobering reading, but a dramatic reduction of the Labour lead on the list vote (which in theory ought to be the more important of the two) offers some grounds for encouragement at this stage, with the proper campaign period - during which the SNP will have the considerable advantage of the most popular party leader - still to come.
As I've suggested before, the most important figure in this election could well turn out to be the combined support for the SNP and Tories - because even though those two parties are highly unlikely to enter into coalition with each other, they are also both unlikely to enter into a deal with Labour. Anything close to a combined SNP/Tory majority would therefore call into question the viability of a minority government led by Iain "the Snarl" Gray. On the constituency vote in this poll, SNP + Tory support comes to 41%, and on the list vote it comes to 44%.
Overall, these figures at least seem somewhat more plausible than the completely unrealistic Labour ratings that TNS-BMRB reported last time round - you don't need to be an expert in polling methodology to know that Labour were never going to receive 47% of the vote on the list. Indeed, even 39% still seems rather improbable given that Donald Dewar only managed 35%.
Last but not least, if James MacKenzie is telling us the truth when he says that the Greens are merely prudently keeping their options open about a coalition with Labour, he might want to urgently have a word with the Herald about it. They seem to see things in a rather different light -
"Despite likely Green support for a coalition..."
The way things are going, the "vote Green, get Gray" meme could soon be picking up a head of steam.
Angus Reid/Vision Critical subsample : SNP on 33% for Westminster
I must be slipping - it took an SNP press release to alert me to the latest Angus Reid/Vision Critical poll! I think I may have missed last month's as well. Here are the full figures from the Scottish subsample -
Labour 41% (-)
SNP 33% (-3)
Conservatives 13% (+3)
Liberal Democrats 6% (-2)
Others 7% (+1)
As I've mentioned a few times before, Angus Reid subsamples seem to be in a different category from those of other pollsters because the numbers are far more stable over time, suggesting they have been weighted. Whether they have been weighted accurately is of course the million dollar question - but on the face of it, these figures are far more encouraging for the Nationalists than the recent YouGov poll, because they relate solely to Westminster voting intention, and the SNP always score higher in Holyrood polls.
Labour 41% (-)
SNP 33% (-3)
Conservatives 13% (+3)
Liberal Democrats 6% (-2)
Others 7% (+1)
As I've mentioned a few times before, Angus Reid subsamples seem to be in a different category from those of other pollsters because the numbers are far more stable over time, suggesting they have been weighted. Whether they have been weighted accurately is of course the million dollar question - but on the face of it, these figures are far more encouraging for the Nationalists than the recent YouGov poll, because they relate solely to Westminster voting intention, and the SNP always score higher in Holyrood polls.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
A few more thoughts on that YouGov poll
I've just been having a belated look at the details of the controversial YouGov poll from the weekend, and there's no great mystery about the two factors that led to a double-digit SNP lead on the raw data being transformed into a handsome Labour lead in the headline figures. The original sample already included more Labour identifiers than SNP identifiers - but the difference was just two (291 Labour to 289 SNP). That was reweighted to become a whopping 478 to 201 advantage for Labour. And on newspaper readership, another crucial aspect of YouGov's methodology, the weighting of the 94 Record/Mirror readers in the actual sample was almost tripled so that they became 251 'virtual' people - who were disproportionately likely to vote Labour, naturally.
In one sense, these figures reinforce the obvious need for weighting - it seems highly likely that Labour do have a greater advantage over the SNP in terms of party identification than the trivial one suggested by the original sample, and it's clear enough that tabloid readers were underrepresented relative to readers of quality papers. But the real issue is where the target figures for the weightings come from, and whether they have any objective basis. YouGov have form on this - after being subjected to persistent criticism in the run-up to last year's Westminster election, they suddenly conceded that their previous methodology had been failing to take account of changes in party ID in Scotland following the SNP's victory in 2007, and that the Nationalists would be "weighted up" by about 2% in subsequent polls. Encouraging though it was to see their willingness to accept an error, it was hard to escape the impression that both the old and the new weightings had to some extent been plucked out of the air on the basis of what 'looks right'. I'd suggest the next lesson they need to learn is that a one-dimensional party ID model simply isn't appropriate for a country with such an entrenched pattern of diverging party preferences for devolved and Westminster elections. If weighting by party allegiance is considered essential due to the difficulties thrown up by YouGov's panel method, a better bet might be to look at how people actually voted in the previous election for the relevant institution, with adjustments to take account of the 'spiral of silence' problem and false recall.
Regardless of what you think of the massive inbuilt 'head-start' awarded to Labour in YouGov polls for Holyrood, one other observation ought to be relatively uncontroversial - the greater the need to reweight certain portions of the sample, the more unreliable the poll results become, even if the weighting system is well-founded. For example, because barely a third of the target number of Record/Mirror readers were interviewed, there's a greater statistical chance that the voting preferences they reported will be unrepresentative of that section of the population, and of course any such distortion will be magnified when the figures are scaled up. The need for such extreme weighting is an inescapable weakness of YouGov's panel method - and yes, James MacKenzie, that remains a valid point no matter how many times the SNP have commissioned YouGov polls in the past.
My own gut feeling - and I said this at Political Betting even after the Ipsos-Mori poll showing the SNP ahead - is that Labour probably do have some kind of lead at the moment, but that the mammoth advantage suggested by the TNS-BMRB poll at the start of the year seemed highly implausible. The same applies to Labour's lead on the list in this poll. Either way, what we all need to urgently remind ourselves of is that this is a PR election, and that the First Minister will be chosen by a vote of all members of the Scottish Parliament, not by a plurality of one party over another in terms of the popular vote or seats. In many ways the most important figure is the combined support for the SNP and Conservatives - not because those two parties are remotely likely to agree a coalition deal, but because the Conservatives are overwhelmingly unlikely to enter into coalition (or indeed any sort of formal deal) with Labour. Even if we assume this poll is accurate, Labour and the Lib Dems in combination have a lead of just 2% on the constituency vote over the SNP and Tories in combination, and 6% on the list. That may put the state of play in somewhat better perspective.
In one sense, these figures reinforce the obvious need for weighting - it seems highly likely that Labour do have a greater advantage over the SNP in terms of party identification than the trivial one suggested by the original sample, and it's clear enough that tabloid readers were underrepresented relative to readers of quality papers. But the real issue is where the target figures for the weightings come from, and whether they have any objective basis. YouGov have form on this - after being subjected to persistent criticism in the run-up to last year's Westminster election, they suddenly conceded that their previous methodology had been failing to take account of changes in party ID in Scotland following the SNP's victory in 2007, and that the Nationalists would be "weighted up" by about 2% in subsequent polls. Encouraging though it was to see their willingness to accept an error, it was hard to escape the impression that both the old and the new weightings had to some extent been plucked out of the air on the basis of what 'looks right'. I'd suggest the next lesson they need to learn is that a one-dimensional party ID model simply isn't appropriate for a country with such an entrenched pattern of diverging party preferences for devolved and Westminster elections. If weighting by party allegiance is considered essential due to the difficulties thrown up by YouGov's panel method, a better bet might be to look at how people actually voted in the previous election for the relevant institution, with adjustments to take account of the 'spiral of silence' problem and false recall.
Regardless of what you think of the massive inbuilt 'head-start' awarded to Labour in YouGov polls for Holyrood, one other observation ought to be relatively uncontroversial - the greater the need to reweight certain portions of the sample, the more unreliable the poll results become, even if the weighting system is well-founded. For example, because barely a third of the target number of Record/Mirror readers were interviewed, there's a greater statistical chance that the voting preferences they reported will be unrepresentative of that section of the population, and of course any such distortion will be magnified when the figures are scaled up. The need for such extreme weighting is an inescapable weakness of YouGov's panel method - and yes, James MacKenzie, that remains a valid point no matter how many times the SNP have commissioned YouGov polls in the past.
My own gut feeling - and I said this at Political Betting even after the Ipsos-Mori poll showing the SNP ahead - is that Labour probably do have some kind of lead at the moment, but that the mammoth advantage suggested by the TNS-BMRB poll at the start of the year seemed highly implausible. The same applies to Labour's lead on the list in this poll. Either way, what we all need to urgently remind ourselves of is that this is a PR election, and that the First Minister will be chosen by a vote of all members of the Scottish Parliament, not by a plurality of one party over another in terms of the popular vote or seats. In many ways the most important figure is the combined support for the SNP and Conservatives - not because those two parties are remotely likely to agree a coalition deal, but because the Conservatives are overwhelmingly unlikely to enter into coalition (or indeed any sort of formal deal) with Labour. Even if we assume this poll is accurate, Labour and the Lib Dems in combination have a lead of just 2% on the constituency vote over the SNP and Tories in combination, and 6% on the list. That may put the state of play in somewhat better perspective.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
A silver lining from YouGov
After the excitement of the recent Ipsos-Mori poll, YouGov have provided a reality-check for the SNP, but certainly not an extinguishing of all hope that the calamity of an Iain "the Snarl" Gray premiership might yet be averted. Here are the full figures -
Constituency vote :
Labour 41% (+1)
SNP 32% (-2)
Conservatives 15% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-)
Others 4% (-1)
List vote :
Labour 40% (+4)
SNP 26% (-5)
Conservatives 15% (-)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-1)
Greens 6% (-)
Others 5% (-)
The SNP have already raised an important technical objection to the poll, namely that the raw figures have been reweighted in accordance with party identification for Westminster elections, which certainly seems counter-intuitive given the traditional disparity between Westminster and Holyrood polls. I've no idea how much credence to give to that complaint, but if it is true that the unadjusted figures showed a double-digit lead for the Nationalists, it's at least worth keeping an open mind on the point. But there are a number of other crumbs of comfort for the SNP as well -
1) For a poll showing a significant Labour lead, the SNP are proving remarkably resilient on the constituency vote - just 1% down on their winning position from 2007.
2) The greater Labour lead on the list vote doesn't pass the 'smell test' somehow. In all of the three Holyrood elections to date, the SNP have managed to retain more of their constituency votes on the list than Labour have, and it's hard to think of any particular reason why that pattern should be completely reversed now.
3) The dire showing for the Lib Dems continues to jeapordise Labour's chances of cobbling together a stable parliamentary majority, whether in coalition or a looser arrangement with Tavish Scott's party. On the seat projections from this poll, the two parties would just about have a majority between them, but there's very little room for slippage from Labour's heady current standing.
4) Although Patrick Harvie seems to be touting the Greens as potential alternative partners for Labour, his party's level of support remains very much on the borderline between a breakthrough in terms of seats, or a 2007-style result. In any case, if they couldn't find sufficient common ground with the SNP four years ago, it seems somewhat doubtful that they'd be able to suffer the 'born to rule' arrogance of Gray's mob for a full term.
It's also worth pointing out that the Ipsos-Mori poll arrived in the wake of Scottish issues (the budget and the Megrahi report) featuring very prominently in the news. With the recent blanket coverage of the revolutions in the Middle East, the reverse is true this time round. We'll have to wait until the formal campaign to get a proper sense of how the stark choice between Salmond and Gray plays with the public when placed before them on a nightly basis.
UPDATE : Stuart Dickson has forwarded me this email he sent to YouGov's Peter Kellner and Anthony Wells, raising a further issue I hadn't previously spotted -
BPC disclosure rules - new YouGov/Scottish Green Party poll published in today's Sunday Herald
Hello Peter and Anthony,
I note that the detailed tables for this YouGov poll...have not appeared yet at the YouGov website. You have been very good lately, so I look forward to perusing the detailed tables as soon as possible (later today?).
It is unsatisfactory that the newspaper article ONLY reports the "certain to vote" VI figures: this is non-standard for YouGov polls, and I can only presume that it is designed to mislead. Please slap the Scottish Green Party / Sunday Herald on the hand.
COPY OF MY POST ON UK POLLING REPORT:
A new YouGov poll on behalf of the Scottish Green Party is published in today’s Sunday Herald.
Dire for the Lib Dems, but unclear whether it is good for Labour or the SNP. Prior to weighting being applied the SNP were 13 POINTS ahead!! After weighting was applied, the SNP were suddenly 9 POINTS behind !! Go figure.
But I am confused by one thing: why on earth are the SH only publishing the “certain to vote” figures ?!? YouGov polls are not normally reported in this fashion. Anthony, can you provide the normal headline figures, as they will appear when YouGov get round to publishing the full tables? Thanks in advance.
On one point YouGov can probably be absolved of blame - it's not unusual for them to wait until Monday to put the details of a Sunday poll on their website. However, if Stuart is right about their normal practice in relation to certainty to vote (they've changed their methodology so many times over the years I've lost track) the partial reporting of this poll in the Herald does seem a bit suspicious. Given that the Scottish Greens commissioned the poll, it's hard not to wonder whether the figures restricted to those certain to vote just happened to be more favourable for Patrick Harvie's party.
Constituency vote :
Labour 41% (+1)
SNP 32% (-2)
Conservatives 15% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-)
Others 4% (-1)
List vote :
Labour 40% (+4)
SNP 26% (-5)
Conservatives 15% (-)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-1)
Greens 6% (-)
Others 5% (-)
The SNP have already raised an important technical objection to the poll, namely that the raw figures have been reweighted in accordance with party identification for Westminster elections, which certainly seems counter-intuitive given the traditional disparity between Westminster and Holyrood polls. I've no idea how much credence to give to that complaint, but if it is true that the unadjusted figures showed a double-digit lead for the Nationalists, it's at least worth keeping an open mind on the point. But there are a number of other crumbs of comfort for the SNP as well -
1) For a poll showing a significant Labour lead, the SNP are proving remarkably resilient on the constituency vote - just 1% down on their winning position from 2007.
2) The greater Labour lead on the list vote doesn't pass the 'smell test' somehow. In all of the three Holyrood elections to date, the SNP have managed to retain more of their constituency votes on the list than Labour have, and it's hard to think of any particular reason why that pattern should be completely reversed now.
3) The dire showing for the Lib Dems continues to jeapordise Labour's chances of cobbling together a stable parliamentary majority, whether in coalition or a looser arrangement with Tavish Scott's party. On the seat projections from this poll, the two parties would just about have a majority between them, but there's very little room for slippage from Labour's heady current standing.
4) Although Patrick Harvie seems to be touting the Greens as potential alternative partners for Labour, his party's level of support remains very much on the borderline between a breakthrough in terms of seats, or a 2007-style result. In any case, if they couldn't find sufficient common ground with the SNP four years ago, it seems somewhat doubtful that they'd be able to suffer the 'born to rule' arrogance of Gray's mob for a full term.
It's also worth pointing out that the Ipsos-Mori poll arrived in the wake of Scottish issues (the budget and the Megrahi report) featuring very prominently in the news. With the recent blanket coverage of the revolutions in the Middle East, the reverse is true this time round. We'll have to wait until the formal campaign to get a proper sense of how the stark choice between Salmond and Gray plays with the public when placed before them on a nightly basis.
UPDATE : Stuart Dickson has forwarded me this email he sent to YouGov's Peter Kellner and Anthony Wells, raising a further issue I hadn't previously spotted -
BPC disclosure rules - new YouGov/Scottish Green Party poll published in today's Sunday Herald
Hello Peter and Anthony,
I note that the detailed tables for this YouGov poll...have not appeared yet at the YouGov website. You have been very good lately, so I look forward to perusing the detailed tables as soon as possible (later today?).
It is unsatisfactory that the newspaper article ONLY reports the "certain to vote" VI figures: this is non-standard for YouGov polls, and I can only presume that it is designed to mislead. Please slap the Scottish Green Party / Sunday Herald on the hand.
COPY OF MY POST ON UK POLLING REPORT:
A new YouGov poll on behalf of the Scottish Green Party is published in today’s Sunday Herald.
Dire for the Lib Dems, but unclear whether it is good for Labour or the SNP. Prior to weighting being applied the SNP were 13 POINTS ahead!! After weighting was applied, the SNP were suddenly 9 POINTS behind !! Go figure.
But I am confused by one thing: why on earth are the SH only publishing the “certain to vote” figures ?!? YouGov polls are not normally reported in this fashion. Anthony, can you provide the normal headline figures, as they will appear when YouGov get round to publishing the full tables? Thanks in advance.
On one point YouGov can probably be absolved of blame - it's not unusual for them to wait until Monday to put the details of a Sunday poll on their website. However, if Stuart is right about their normal practice in relation to certainty to vote (they've changed their methodology so many times over the years I've lost track) the partial reporting of this poll in the Herald does seem a bit suspicious. Given that the Scottish Greens commissioned the poll, it's hard not to wonder whether the figures restricted to those certain to vote just happened to be more favourable for Patrick Harvie's party.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
SNP storm back into the lead with Ipsos-Mori
Hot on the heels of Brian Souter's potentially game-changing donation to the SNP, tonight brings word of the Nationalists' best opinion poll showing since...well, it must be quite a while ago as I can't remember exactly when! Here are the full figures (or 'full' for the four largest parties) -
Constituency vote :
SNP 37% (+6)
Labour 36% (-5)
Conservatives 13% (-)
Liberal Democrats 10% (-1)
Regional list vote :
SNP 35% (+3)
Labour 33% (-3)
Conservatives 13% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 10% (+1)
Note : I'm not quite sure whether I've got the Tories and the Lib Dems the right way round on the list vote, as I've seen contradictory information (and of course I don't pay my Murdoch levy).
As ever, there is a health warning - there's always the danger that one poll in isolation might be a rogue, and in any case Ipsos-Mori seemed to overstate the SNP in the run-up to last year's general election. But as with the Souter donation, the real value of this poll could be its impact on the media narrative. Nick Pearce's complacent suggestion earlier today that the result of the election was bound to be a minority Labour administration or a Lib-Lab coalition unless Alex Salmond could produce "something dramatic out of the hat" is a fine example of the narrative that's just (for the time being, at any rate) been completely blown away.
Constituency vote :
SNP 37% (+6)
Labour 36% (-5)
Conservatives 13% (-)
Liberal Democrats 10% (-1)
Regional list vote :
SNP 35% (+3)
Labour 33% (-3)
Conservatives 13% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 10% (+1)
Note : I'm not quite sure whether I've got the Tories and the Lib Dems the right way round on the list vote, as I've seen contradictory information (and of course I don't pay my Murdoch levy).
As ever, there is a health warning - there's always the danger that one poll in isolation might be a rogue, and in any case Ipsos-Mori seemed to overstate the SNP in the run-up to last year's general election. But as with the Souter donation, the real value of this poll could be its impact on the media narrative. Nick Pearce's complacent suggestion earlier today that the result of the election was bound to be a minority Labour administration or a Lib-Lab coalition unless Alex Salmond could produce "something dramatic out of the hat" is a fine example of the narrative that's just (for the time being, at any rate) been completely blown away.
Monday, January 17, 2011
If the Telegraph had done their 'research' (ie. asked me) they'd have realised Alan Cochrane is a rubbish columnist
Well, it was always fairly predictable that Alan Cochrane wouldn't be able to resist marking Alex Salmond's impertinent dalliance with Respectable London Society (ie. going on Desert Island Discs) with yet another tedious Telegraph ramble featuring the word "Eck" rather a lot...
"But I'm afraid Miss Young's researches – or researchers – let her down badly in her estimation of Mr Salmond.
The idea that he is this Great Debater is, quite frankly, rubbish. I have seen every single formal debate – in parliament and elsewhere – in which Alex Salmond has taken part over the past 15 years or so and it is simply not his forte. Oh sure, he can do the smart one-liners, the often-personal put downs and he is a very good, sometimes brilliant, television performer and an often inspirational campaigner. However, there are too many holes in his basic argument for him to win many debates."
So the Cochrane logic seems to go something like this. I think Scottish independence is a bad idea. Alex Salmond argues for Scottish independence in debate. Ergo Alex Salmond is a poor debater. Oh, and Kirsty Young doesn't acknowledge that fact, ergo she and her team don't read my column (it goes without saying they couldn't have read it and - gasp - disagreed with it), ergo they haven't done their "research" properly.
Oh-kaaaaay....
On one small point we can probably all agree with Cochrane, though...
"...the London-based media is too lazy to find out what is really going on in Scotland."
Where we'd have to instantly part company with him again, though, is in his estimation that the only things of relevance "going on" in Scotland are his own thought-waves. And Jenny Hjul's, at a pinch. How else can we explain his bizarre insistence a couple of years ago that the SNP's planned local income tax was "universally known in Scotland as the Nat Tax", when to the best of my knowledge no-one other than him had ever actually used the term?
* * * * *
The substantial gap between Labour and the SNP in the latest TNS-BMRB poll clearly makes for sobering reading at this stage of the electoral cycle, but the raw percentage shares for the parties frankly have very little credibility. Does anyone seriously think Labour has the slightest chance of achieving 47% on the list vote, when even under Donald Dewar they only managed 35%? On past form, it may well be that both Labour and the SNP are being overestimated - the million dollar question is whether they're being overestimated by a similar amount.
"But I'm afraid Miss Young's researches – or researchers – let her down badly in her estimation of Mr Salmond.
The idea that he is this Great Debater is, quite frankly, rubbish. I have seen every single formal debate – in parliament and elsewhere – in which Alex Salmond has taken part over the past 15 years or so and it is simply not his forte. Oh sure, he can do the smart one-liners, the often-personal put downs and he is a very good, sometimes brilliant, television performer and an often inspirational campaigner. However, there are too many holes in his basic argument for him to win many debates."
So the Cochrane logic seems to go something like this. I think Scottish independence is a bad idea. Alex Salmond argues for Scottish independence in debate. Ergo Alex Salmond is a poor debater. Oh, and Kirsty Young doesn't acknowledge that fact, ergo she and her team don't read my column (it goes without saying they couldn't have read it and - gasp - disagreed with it), ergo they haven't done their "research" properly.
Oh-kaaaaay....
On one small point we can probably all agree with Cochrane, though...
"...the London-based media is too lazy to find out what is really going on in Scotland."
Where we'd have to instantly part company with him again, though, is in his estimation that the only things of relevance "going on" in Scotland are his own thought-waves. And Jenny Hjul's, at a pinch. How else can we explain his bizarre insistence a couple of years ago that the SNP's planned local income tax was "universally known in Scotland as the Nat Tax", when to the best of my knowledge no-one other than him had ever actually used the term?
* * * * *
The substantial gap between Labour and the SNP in the latest TNS-BMRB poll clearly makes for sobering reading at this stage of the electoral cycle, but the raw percentage shares for the parties frankly have very little credibility. Does anyone seriously think Labour has the slightest chance of achieving 47% on the list vote, when even under Donald Dewar they only managed 35%? On past form, it may well be that both Labour and the SNP are being overestimated - the million dollar question is whether they're being overestimated by a similar amount.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
No change with Angus Reid
Yet another example of the almost uncanny stability exhibited by Angus Reid's Scottish subsamples, in comparison to those produced by other pollsters - the latest figures show no change at all for three of the four main parties...
Labour 42% (-)
SNP 34% (-)
Conservatives 13% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 6%(-)
Others 4% (-3)
As these are Westminster voting intention numbers, the SNP steady at 34% and just eight points behind Labour ought to be very encouraging news, but who knows how much credence can be given to it?
Labour 42% (-)
SNP 34% (-)
Conservatives 13% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 6%(-)
Others 4% (-3)
As these are Westminster voting intention numbers, the SNP steady at 34% and just eight points behind Labour ought to be very encouraging news, but who knows how much credence can be given to it?
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Angus Reid subsample : Labour resume lead
After last month's unusual result with Labour and the SNP tied for the lead, the Scottish subsample from the latest UK-wide Angus Reid poll shows a more familiar picture. Here are the full figures -
Labour 38% (+1)
SNP 25% (-12)
Conservatives 20% (+7)
Liberal Democrats 8% (+1)
Others 8% (+3)
Despite the apparent drop in the SNP's support, a 25% rating is healthy enough in a poll for Westminster voting intentions, while the Lib Dems remain at less than half of their general election level. As I mentioned last month, Angus Reid's Scottish subsamples are of slightly more interest than those of other pollsters because the figures have tended to be somewhat more stable over time.
Labour 38% (+1)
SNP 25% (-12)
Conservatives 20% (+7)
Liberal Democrats 8% (+1)
Others 8% (+3)
Despite the apparent drop in the SNP's support, a 25% rating is healthy enough in a poll for Westminster voting intentions, while the Lib Dems remain at less than half of their general election level. As I mentioned last month, Angus Reid's Scottish subsamples are of slightly more interest than those of other pollsters because the figures have tended to be somewhat more stable over time.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Mixed news for SNP with Ipsos-Mori
The latest full-scale Scottish poll conducted by Ipsos-Mori contains sobering news for the SNP on the constituency vote, with Labour's lead increasing from three to ten points. But that story is almost completely reversed on the list vote, with Labour's lead slipping from nine points to four. Here are the full figures -
Constituency vote
Labour 41% (+4)
SNP 31% (-3)
Conservatives 13% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 11% (-2)
Others 5% (+1)
List vote
Labour 36% (-2)
SNP 32% (+3)
Conservatives 12% (-)
Liberal Democrats 9% (-3)
Others 10% (+1)
Despite the conflicting signals here, and in spite of the fact that the list vote is (in theory at least) the more important of the two, I'd have to say this looks more like bad news than good for the SNP. The constituency vote is requested first and that will usually give the most accurate indication of the electorate's attitude towards the parties. However, there's the customary better news on the leaders' ratings, with Alex Salmond comfortably outstripping Iain Gray in the popularity stakes, and with Tavish Scott very tellingly being the only one of the four leaders to suffer a negative rating. That at least offers some grounds for optimism that the SNP's fortunes may improve once the campaign proper gets underway and the leaders are pushed to the forefront.
Constituency vote
Labour 41% (+4)
SNP 31% (-3)
Conservatives 13% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 11% (-2)
Others 5% (+1)
List vote
Labour 36% (-2)
SNP 32% (+3)
Conservatives 12% (-)
Liberal Democrats 9% (-3)
Others 10% (+1)
Despite the conflicting signals here, and in spite of the fact that the list vote is (in theory at least) the more important of the two, I'd have to say this looks more like bad news than good for the SNP. The constituency vote is requested first and that will usually give the most accurate indication of the electorate's attitude towards the parties. However, there's the customary better news on the leaders' ratings, with Alex Salmond comfortably outstripping Iain Gray in the popularity stakes, and with Tavish Scott very tellingly being the only one of the four leaders to suffer a negative rating. That at least offers some grounds for optimism that the SNP's fortunes may improve once the campaign proper gets underway and the leaders are pushed to the forefront.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Angus Reid : SNP draw level with Labour on Westminster voting intention
A new UK-wide Angus Reid poll is out showing Labour in the lead - a fact which makes the Scottish subsample all the more startling...
SNP 37% (+14)
Labour 37% (-10)
Conservatives 13% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-6)
If these figures are even close to accurate, they would be spectacular for the SNP, because of course the party's Westminster performance tends to lag significantly behind its Holyrood vote. It is of course a subsample rather than a full-scale poll, so it has to be treated with great caution - but all the same, Angus Reid subsamples do seem to be in a special category in this respect. My general impression in the run-up to the general election was that the firm's Scottish numbers were much more stable than those produced by other pollsters, leading me to wonder if they were properly weighting the figures for each 'region' independently of each other.
Either way, it's an extremely small sample size, with a huge margin of error. But like the most recent full-scale Scottish poll from YouGov, it's another straw in the wind suggesting that declining popularity for the coalition does not automatically play into Labour's hands in Scotland. Which is just as well, given that it seems reasonable to suppose that the Tories will be taking an even greater hit between now and May.
SNP 37% (+14)
Labour 37% (-10)
Conservatives 13% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-6)
If these figures are even close to accurate, they would be spectacular for the SNP, because of course the party's Westminster performance tends to lag significantly behind its Holyrood vote. It is of course a subsample rather than a full-scale poll, so it has to be treated with great caution - but all the same, Angus Reid subsamples do seem to be in a special category in this respect. My general impression in the run-up to the general election was that the firm's Scottish numbers were much more stable than those produced by other pollsters, leading me to wonder if they were properly weighting the figures for each 'region' independently of each other.
Either way, it's an extremely small sample size, with a huge margin of error. But like the most recent full-scale Scottish poll from YouGov, it's another straw in the wind suggesting that declining popularity for the coalition does not automatically play into Labour's hands in Scotland. Which is just as well, given that it seems reasonable to suppose that the Tories will be taking an even greater hit between now and May.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
SoS opinion poll analysis : compare and contrast
According to Tom Peterkin in Scotland on Sunday, Labour's opinion poll leads of six and five points over the SNP are, in spite of having just been roughly halved, "solid".
But he also reassures us twice that Alex Salmond's seventeen-point lead over Iain Gray as the best First Minister is "not irretrievable" and "not insurmountable".
Answers on a postcard...
But he also reassures us twice that Alex Salmond's seventeen-point lead over Iain Gray as the best First Minister is "not irretrievable" and "not insurmountable".
Answers on a postcard...
Thursday, October 21, 2010
YouGov : SNP trim Labour's list vote lead by five points
At long last, there is a new full-scale Scottish opinion poll out. It was conducted by YouGov for the Scotsman, and makes slightly more encouraging reading for the SNP than the figures from early September, when Labour enjoyed a comfortable ten-point lead on both ballots. Here are the full figures -
Constituency vote :
Labour 40% (+1)
SNP 34% (+5)
Conservatives 14% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-3)
List vote :
Labour 36% (-)
SNP 31% (+5)
Conservatives 15% (-)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-4)
Greens 6% (-)
The Scotsman's reporting of the story focuses on two points - that Labour is "maintaining" its "solid" lead over the SNP, and that the Lib Dems are finally taking the long-anticipated hit for going into coalition with the Tories. But this seems to me to miss an obvious point - not only have the SNP eaten into Labour's lead somewhat, but on the face of it that extra support seems to have come directly from the Westminster coalition parties, while Labour have remained roughly static. That may be a wholly misleading impression, but equally it could offer some grounds for optimism about what might happen if the coalition's (and especially the Liberal Democrats') support is squeezed yet further. Either way, I'm sure most SNP supporters will just be relieved to note that this poll shows them still very much in the game.
Another concern facing enthusiasts for the nascent Iain "the Snarl" Gray/Tavish Scott Dream Team is that, on these figures for the Liberal Democrats, such a coalition may quite simply not be arithmetically viable - even if Labour emerge as the largest party. A second consecutive minority government (of one colour or another) is looking somewhat more likely tonight.
Constituency vote :
Labour 40% (+1)
SNP 34% (+5)
Conservatives 14% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-3)
List vote :
Labour 36% (-)
SNP 31% (+5)
Conservatives 15% (-)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-4)
Greens 6% (-)
The Scotsman's reporting of the story focuses on two points - that Labour is "maintaining" its "solid" lead over the SNP, and that the Lib Dems are finally taking the long-anticipated hit for going into coalition with the Tories. But this seems to me to miss an obvious point - not only have the SNP eaten into Labour's lead somewhat, but on the face of it that extra support seems to have come directly from the Westminster coalition parties, while Labour have remained roughly static. That may be a wholly misleading impression, but equally it could offer some grounds for optimism about what might happen if the coalition's (and especially the Liberal Democrats') support is squeezed yet further. Either way, I'm sure most SNP supporters will just be relieved to note that this poll shows them still very much in the game.
Another concern facing enthusiasts for the nascent Iain "the Snarl" Gray/Tavish Scott Dream Team is that, on these figures for the Liberal Democrats, such a coalition may quite simply not be arithmetically viable - even if Labour emerge as the largest party. A second consecutive minority government (of one colour or another) is looking somewhat more likely tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)