Thursday, 23 October 2014

Rochester & Strood opinion polling

http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/Rochester_&_Strood_published_tables_Oct_2014.pdf

Wednesday, 22 October 2014

YOUGOV - Regional breakdown of thoughts on the quality of party leaders

https://yougov.co.uk/refer/HdvYK1txkm0PfdJX43_Iow/  <<< Follow the link if you would like to join the YOUGOV panel and have your opinions heard






http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/t8c225q8rj/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-211014.pdf 

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

October's political pop chart

Last months rankings in brackets, each link is to the ALEXA page for the party not the parties website ALEXA RANKING EXPLAINED

1 (2) UKIP 2,111
2 (3) SNP 2,292
3 (1) CONSERVATIVES 3,013
4 (4) LABOUR 4,538
5 (5) THE GREEN PARTY 7,538
6 (7) LIBERAL DEMOCRATS 10,178
7 (6) THE SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY 18,346
8 (9) SCOTTISH SOCIALIST PARTY 26,682
9 (8) JUSTICE 4 MEN & BOYS 37,631
10 (10) PIRATE PARTY 79,938
11 (-) LEFT UNITY 85,238

UK GENERAL ELECTION 2015 BLOG 37,502

GLOBAL RANKING

RESPECT PARTY 832,609
SINN FEIN 673,106
DEMOCRATIC UNIONIST PARTY 2,810,324
OMRLP 3,509,674
PLAID CYMRU 3,556,286
ENGLISH DEMOCRAT 4,734,118
NHA PARTY 4,839,948
CHRISTIAN PARTY 4,862,143
THE ALLIANCE PARTY 4,972,548
MEBYON KERNOW 5,079,121
TUV 5,957,839
SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY  6,614,962
WESSEX REGIONALISTS 8,307,418
PATRIOTIC SOCIALIST PARTY 10,542,897
THE LIBERAL PARTY 11,521,110
ULSTER UNIONIST PARTY 13,696,180
NONE OF THE ABOVE 14,108,107
AN INDEPENDENCE FROM EUROPE PARTY 17,309,232
NATIONAL LIBERAL PARTY 19,806,177

NO DATA


SCOTTISH DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE
TUSC
THE PEACE PARTY
NI21

Average time spent on the website

LIBDEMS 4m 31s
GREENS 3m 10s
UKIP 3m 6s
MEBYON KERNOW 2m 37s
CONSERVATIVES 2m 50s
J4MB 2m 36s
NHA PARTY 2m 33s 
SNP 2m 31s
LABOUR 2m 30s
RESPECT 2m 23s
SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY 2m 16s
DUP 2m 7s
LEFT UNITY 2m 6s
SINN FEIN 2m 4s
ALLIANCE 2m 01s
SSP 1m 43s
UK GENERAL ELECTION 2015 BLOG 1m 40s
ENG DEMS 1m 39s
PLAID CYMRU 1m 34s
TUSC 1m 10s

PIRATE PARTY 50s
OMRLP 48s

Links in to the website

CONSERVATIVES 2,437
LABOUR 2,228
LIBDEMS 1,865
UKIP 1,444
GREENS 1,221
SNP 882
SINN FEIN 707
PIRATE PARTY 476
PLAID CYMRU 321

SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY 292
SSP 244

UUP 196
LEFT UNITY 191
ALLIANCE 154

CHRISTIAN PARTY 137
J4MB 125

TUSC 114
NHA PARTY 113
ENG DEMS 101
OMRLP 94
RESPECT 85 
MEBYON KERNOW 78
DUP 78

SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY 74
LIBERAL PARTY 58

TUV 47
AN INDEPENDENCE FROM EUROPE 41
UK GENERAL ELECTION 2015 BLOG 38

NATIONAL LIBERAL PARTY 35
THE PEACE PARTY 32
NONE OF THE ABOVE 2
3
NI21 16 
SDA 10

PATRIOTIC SOCIALIST PARTY 6

WESSEX REGIONALISTS 3

% of people from the UK who visit the website 

SCOTTISH SOCIALIST PARTY 88.8%
CONSERVATIVES 88.4%
SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY 86.8%
SNP 81.6%
GREENS 80%
LABOUR 79.6%
LIBDEMS 76.9%
LEFT UNITY 76.8%
J4MB 75.4%
UKIP 68.3% 
PIRATE PARTY 53.1%

COMRES POLLWATCH: The impact of immigration on GE2015 strategies


POLLWATCH:
The impact of immigration on GE2015 strategies
In last week’s Pollwatch we saw that voter concerns about immigration have increased in tandem with a prolonged downturn in household incomes, and that there is a greater readiness among UKIP and the Conservatives to appeal to those concerns. Given that this situation is unlikely to end soon, what can the parties do to turn the debate in their favour?
One of the classic political mistakes is to assume that what works for your opponent will work for you. In this Pollwatch we consider the different positions that are likely to help each party, both in winning votes at the next election, and looking longer term at implementing their policy agenda - an objective that is often overlooked.
UKIP diversifies
UKIP’s success has coincided with a switch to a more anti-immigration message, following the contemporary Eurosceptic archetype echoed by some of their continental counterparts: disgruntled, nostalgic, plausible.

A notable feature of the modern anti-EU party is that it has learnt how to gain support in a wider variety of seats than its predecessors – from sleepy seaside towns, to blue collar estates hit by the decline in manufacturing, and to even the metropolitan commuter belt.
UKIP's strategy is having the desired effect. Party strategists know that these issues are not disappearing any time soon, and that any party facing the prospect of Government (i.e. all three traditional parties) is either hamstrung in its response or will have to make false promises to compete.

Looking further ahead, though, UKIP needs to be aware of its toxicity among some voters. It has taken the Tories two decades to try and shift the 'nasty party' description and they have still not succeeded. Moreover, as long as UKIP continues to steal more votes from the Conservatives than from Labour, it may inadvertently keep pro-European parties in power.
Two takes on the Conservative Party
There are two perspectives on what is happening to the Conservative campaign.

One says that immigration has blindsided them. It points to the strategy of modernisation – which advocates a “centre ground” position in an effort to avoid further contaminating the Conservative Party brand – and says that the modernisers underestimated the UKIP threat.

Indeed there is some evidence to support the view that triangulation – reaching over the heads of your opponents to broaden your appeal – is not as effective as it once was. Seen through this prism, Mr Cameron’s moves last week on immigration are a desperate roll of the dice.
The alternative view is that this has been in the cooker for a while: As far back as last September, Lynton Crosby was reported to have briefed 180 Conservative MPs at a Chipping Norton away day that “the key to success in 2015 is to get its immigration message right”.
A quick look at other campaigns Mr Crosby has led suggests a pattern which could be replicated. The term “wedge issue” is often misused, but in this case is apt: it essentially means an issue on which your party can maintain a united front, but which splits your opponents roughly down the middle, causing them to turn in on themselves.

Immigration has long been Mr Crosby’s “go-to” means of setting the cat among the pigeons, for instance in the 2001 Australian federal election, when it caused mayhem in the Opposition Labor Party ranks.
When Mr Crosby tried the same tactics as adviser to Michael Howard’s general election campaign in 2005, Labour resisted the temptation to implode. They had been conditioned by Tony Blair and figures like David Blunkett, Charles Clarke and John Reid to maintain a compromise position which mixed a willingness to “talk tough” on immigration while also celebrating the benefits that different cultures had brought to Britain. This was also an easier sell in 2005: the economy was still thriving and EU immigration was not regarded as being so wholly out of control.
The post-recession electoral landscape is now more amenable to Mr Crosby’s approach, but it is not without its risks for Mr Cameron. Promises of EU renegotiation and tighter restrictions on non-EU migrants are not going to be easy to keep, and could also be seen as an admission that his modernisation agenda has been abandoned.

After a disciplined mix of social liberalism and fiscal prudence in the current parliament, a 2015-20 Conservative Government would govern on a manifesto of social conservatism and potentially unfunded tax cuts.
For the strategy to work, Mr Cameron needs to hold on to his existing support, win over Labour voters concerned about immigration, and convince UKIP supporters that they should treat the election as a two-horse race between Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband.

There are two big risks in this strategy: one is that the swing voters and business audiences Mr Cameron worked so hard to woo in 2010 will be turned off by the change of focus; the other is that wavering Labour and UKIP voters might accept Mr Cameron’s new analysis on immigration, but will blame him for not doing enough about it over the past five years.
A test for Labour
Ed Miliband and Labour have so far avoided the same kind of public scuffle that finished off the Australian Labor Party in 2001. But there are hints of what is to come.

Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk has said that “too many people in the Labour Party think we should never raise the subject of immigration.” Veteran Labour MP Frank Field challenged Mr Miliband on the issue at last Monday’s meeting of the PLP, arguing that “the whole nature of England has changed.” On the other side, Diane Abbott has previously attacked Labour for “pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment.”
Criticism from the usual suspects on the backbenches may not cost Ed Miliband the election, but are a warning that trouble lies ahead. The challenge for the Labour leadership and election strategists is to understand that there has been a genuine attitudinal shift and to come up with a coherent, unified response to it – one that they can communicate persuasively to the different factions of the party, as well as their ordinary party members (who will be vital in getting out the vote in May 2015).
Labour will need to show that it has made the effort to listen to and understand concerns around immigration, without stigmatising all voters who hold these concerns – some may well be motivated by deeply held attitudes around nationality and identity, but the fact that concern has risen with the decline in household income suggests that a substantial proportion of voters are “soft” on the issue, motivated mainly by concern about living standards.
This ought to be an opportunity for a united Labour to turn the immigration debate on its head, arguing that most of the problems currently being blamed on immigrants – pay freezes, competition for jobs, and difficulty accessing public services – are of the Government’s own making and that David Cameron is passing the buck. However he chooses to tackle it, though, Mr Miliband must convince his party to speak with one voice on the issue, from Islington to Blackburn. That is where he is most likely to fall down.
The Lib Dems breathe easy
The one party which can breathe a big sigh of relief is the Liberal Democrats. An all-out war over immigration between the other major parties is unlikely to harm them, and may give Nick Clegg more room to claim the moderate centre as his turf. In the event of a hung parliament, it may also add to the Lib Dems’ appeal as a coalition partner – a chance to abandon a difficult manifesto commitment and blame it on the junior party.
Follow ComRes on Twitter for the latest polls and analysis:
@ComResPolls
Author:
Andy White
@ComResAndyWhite

Political & Media Team
Be prepared for GE2015 with the new ComRes Election Toolkit
Battlebus

The 2015 Battlebus is an online survey of 1,000 adults living in the 40 most marginal constituencies where Labour and the Conservatives share first and second place between them and battle head-to-head to get their candidate elected. This survey offers unique access to the opinions of those voters who will win or lose the election for the main parties - all at omnibus price levels.
In the run up to the election, and whilst the parties are drafting their manifestos, this research tool is ideal for ensuring that each of the parties know the importance of your policy issues to those who will be decisive in getting them elected. This can be very powerful for lobbying material or for generating media hits.
Future MPs survey

Based on forecasts using our long-term voting intention surveys and careful psephological analysis, we have formulated a method of gauging the most likely composition of the House of Commons after May 2015.
Guaranteeing a sample of 100 of those MPs and PPCs who are most likely to take a seat in Parliament after 2015, ComRes is offering its clients a chance to gain vital insight into the levels of support for policy issues post 2015, enabling organisations to be on the front foot for when the new Parliament sits.
More information here.

ComRes, Four Millbank, London, SW1P 3JA

ComRes is the trading name of CommunicateResearch Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Company number: 4810991. Registered office: Coveham House, Downside Bridge Road, Cobham, Surrey KT11 3EP.

POPULUS POLLING (Wonder why they differ from other polls?)

I will let you come to your own conclusions, I have already said my piece in the past.

http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/OmOnline_Vote_20-10-2014_BPC.pdf

Yougov (Is it fear factor politics?)

https://yougov.co.uk/refer/HdvYK1txkm0PfdJX43_Iow/  <<< Follow the link if you would like to join the YOUGOV panel and have your opinions heard

A LIST OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE WORRY ABOUT AND HOW MUCH THEY WORRY ABOUT THEM IN RELATION TO WHOM THEY VOTE FOR.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/u021h6mva9/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-201014.pdf 

Monday, 20 October 2014

2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast (20th OCT)

This report was generated on 20 October 2014 at 12:27. To read commentary on the election using these forecasts, follow Election4castUK on Twitter. If you would like to give us feedback on this forecast, please email us at

The following tables focuses on potential seat gains and losses for each of the parties, including only those seats for which the probability of a change of control is estimated at over 10%. If the table is blank, there are currently no such seats.
Conservatives: Gains Losses
Labour: Gains Losses
Liberal Democrats: Gains Losses
SNP: Gains Losses
Plaid Cymru: Gains Losses
Greens: Gains Losses
UKIP: Gains

Our current prediction is that there will be no overall majority, but that Labour will be the largest party with 306 seats. However, based on the historical relationships between the sources of information we are using in our forecast and the outcome of UK elections, we know there is substantial uncertainty in our forecast. The sidebar at right includes predictive probabilities of the key outcomes of the election, as well as vote and seat forecasts for each party with 90% uncertainty intervals.
  • And now the party forecast...
    • Conservatives. Fading slightly over the past fortnight. Seat loss very likely. Majority very unlikely. Plurality unlikely.
    • Labour. Holding steady. Seat gain almost certain. Majority unlikely. Plurality probable.
    • Liberal Democrats. Holding steady. Seat loss almost certain.
    • SNP. Holding steady. Seat gain almost certain.
    • Plaid Cymru. Holding steady. Seat loss probable.
    • Greens. Holding steady. Seat loss probable.
    • UKIP. Rising. Seat gain almost certain.

Party Lo Seats Hi Swing
Conservatives 232 275 318 -31
Labour 264 306 347 48
Liberal Democrats 14 26 39 -31
SNP 12 19 28 13
Plaid Cymru 0 2 4 -1
Greens 0 0 1 -1
UKIP 1 3 6 3
Other 1 1 2 0
Seat-by-seat predictions based on the party predicted to be most likely to win each seat.

Lord Ashcroft Poll


Ashcroft National Poll: Con 28%, Lab 31%, Lib Dem 7%, UKIP 18%, Green 8%


By
Labour lead by three points in this week’s Ashcroft National Poll, conducted over the past weekend. There is little movement in the main parties shares: the Conservatives are unchanged on 28%, with Labour (31%), the Liberal Democrats (7%) and UKIP (18%) each down a point since last week. The Greens are up three points at 8%, their highest level yet in the ANP.
As in previous weeks, we find Labour’s lead in the ANP similar to that in other recent surveys, but a lower combined vote share for the two main parties than that found by other pollsters.
In other questions, I found people more optimistic about their own economic prospects than about those of the country. Nearly two thirds (64%) said they expected the economy to do well for them over the next year, compared to 58% thinking things would go well for Britain as a whole. UKIP voters were the most pessimistic, but swing voters (who say they don’t know how they will vote or may change their minds) were more optimistic than average.
More than twice as many people said they and their families were worse off now than they had been in 2010 (37%) as said they were better off (18%) – though they were more likely to say the country as a whole was worse off (42%) than that they were personally. Half of all UKIP voters said Britain was worse off now than it had been four years ago.
However, only just over one fifth of voters said they thought that either the country (22%) or they themselves (23%) would have been better off than they were now had Labour been in government since 2010. More than a third (35%) said Britain would probably have been worse off, and 30% thought they would have been worse off themselves. Swing voters were the most likely to say it would probably have made no difference.
There has been little movement on these questions since I last asked them at the end of May, suggesting that opinion on these matters is largely settled: it will be a struggle for Labour to convince any more voters that Britain would have been better off under their Plan B, and fruitless for the Tories to spend more energy blaming Labour for the recession. What matters is what happens next.

How much each vote cost in a by election.

How much each by election cost

Above is a link to the first part where it said how much by election cost

Now we figure out how much each vote cost.

By election - Turnout - Cost of by election - cost per vote

Manchester Central - 16,648 - £264,727 - £15.90
Cardiff South & Penarth - 19,436 - £248,326 - £12.78
Middlesbrough - 16,866 - £200,889 - £11.91
Feltham & Heston 23,299 - £275,768 - £11.84
Croydon North 24,562 - £280,245 - £11.41
Rotherham 21,330 - £235,852 - £11.06
Wythenshawe & Sale East - 23,961 - £256,529 - £10.71
South Shields - 24,780 - £242,340 - £9.78
Barnsley Central 24,219 - £216,977 - £8.96
Bradford West - 32,905 - £220,005 - £6.69
Corby - 35,665 - £229,509 - £6.46
Oldham & Saddleworth - 34,930 - £222,032 - £6.36
Eastleigh - 41,616 - £256,629 - £6.17
Leicester South - 34,180 - £197,628 - £5.78

figures up until Feb 2014