Ken moves ahead in non-BPC poll
April 19th, 2008
Will the pollster perform better than it did in Scotland?
A new London survey tonight from a firm that is not listed as a member of the British Polling Council provides a big boost to Ken as he seeks to defend his mayoralty.
The firm, MRUK, found first preference figures of Ken 45%: Boris 44%: Paddick 9%. After second preferences are taken into account Boris and Ken are on 50:50.
The survey took place from April 7th to the 14th and the results were weighted to“match the electorate”. There is no indication whether likelihood to vote was factored in or whether the firm sought to ensure a politically balanced sample. The fact that this is not mentioned leads me to assume that these elements were not part of the methodology.
We last saw MRUK at the Scottish elections last year when they over-estimated the Labour and SNP shares and grossly underestimated the Conservative and Liberal Democrat positions. This was their prediction in the constituency section with comparisons on the actual result: LAB 34% (actual 32.2%): SNP 38% (32.9%): CON 11% (16.6%): LD 13% (16.2%)
-
When the firm’s Scottish poll was published in April 2007 I offered them a wager of £1000 that they would be overstating the Labour vote. Sadly for my bank balance they, nor the paper that published the survey, took me up. I am prepared to repeat that with this London poll. How about it Mr. Sunday Times?
These latest London numbers are very much in line with what MORI found last week - BEFORE the firm applied its turnout filter. After that calculation had taken place MORI reported a 6% deficit for Ken on first preferences.
If I am right about the methodology this survey is good news for Boris and bad news for Ken. The real issue with an election like the one on May 1st is turnout and unless this has been measured and applied to the figures then this looks like one of those old fashioned surveys that got the 1992 general election result so wrong.
It is a real shame that the Sunday Times has not commissioned a firm that is a British Polling Council member which would have given us greater confidence in its findings.
UPDATE: The story about the poll has now appeared on the Sunday Times website and does suggest that the question of likelihood to vote was put. What we do not know is whether this was factored into their figures.
There’s a quote from a director of MRUK that “Turnout looks like the key - Ken can win if his natural followers make it to the polling booth, whereas the support for Boris seems slightly more solid in terms of likelihood to vote”. But how was this applied to the figures that have been published? Did they ask whether respondents were even registered to vote - something that the other pollsters will be doing in the next few days?
If MRUK was a member of the BPC then the full detail would have to be made available within two working days and we could come to a proper assessment. Let’s hope the firm does make information available.
It is perhaps worth reiterating that every single telephone poll ahead of the 2000 and 2004 mayoral elections overstated Ken’s position by a considerable degree.
MessageSpace Advertising
Old, no explanation of methodology, previous inaccuracy, non BPC. In short, pretty useless?
1 - pretty useless, but could give the livingstone campaign the momentum that it is looking for.
Strange thing is, it is not the result I am seeing on the ground.
Matt1,
My thoughts exactly. I’d put more faith in figures released by Labour from their canvass returns!
Can anyone believe a poll which has Ken and Boris with 89% of first votes?
In short, it’s becoming clear that Ken cannot beat Boris unless he can turn out a fairly large chunk of voters - perhaps 3-5% of the electorate - who quite like him but wouldn’t normally bother voting in the mayoral poll. Unless he can raise turnout above the levels we’d normally expect - and that YouGov and other polls are predicting - Boris will win.
Some background to mruk CELLO
Cello acquires MRUK Research for £6m
by Ben Bold Brand Republic 08-Jun-07, 09:00
LONDON - Market research group Cello has acquired public sector specialist MRUK Research in a deal worth an estimated £6m.
Cello’s initial consideration is for £1.5m, half of which is payable in cash and the remainder in the issue of shares. Further performance-related payments up to a maximum of £4.5m…
A poll to talk about. Now that does make a pleasant change.
Malcolm
I susoect Mike is being diplomatic. It sounds pants. The age of the field work alone means the sunday times should hang its head in shame.
mruk CELLO seem to specialist in busines to business research. Not exactly the right pedigree!
Postal votes arrived today; one in the box for the Conservatives as my good lady wife has voted.
I can’t believe that the Lib/Dems are only on 9% if that were the case in the actual election, Clegg would be doomed.
Every poll understates Conservative support, i believe Livingstone is catching Boris a bit but that Boris will in the end by around 5% i’ve been canversing in marginal wards in South London since Feb and there is consistant opposition to Red Ken.
11, I do hope Clegg is doomed.
11 - what is “canversing”?
I’ve just added this to the main story:-
This will be largely down turn out. Indeed, I fully intend making use of this site (http://www.metoffice.co.uk/) in making my prediction.
I don’t believe Ken is doing as badly as some suggest. His voters are not so vocal as Boris’.
Using a non-BPC pollster less than a fortnight before a close election is completely irresponsible, and I am very surprised (and not a little disappointed) that a supposedly ‘quality paper’ like the Sunday Times has done so.
Beyond that, the idea that a non-specialist should move into political polls, get it wrong in Scotland because they are using a 16-years-out-of-date methodology that a schoolchild could pull appart, and then proceed to say that the top 3 party candidates will get 98% when last time their parties got 78% doesn’t even deserve to be paid. They are clearly rank amateurs who should be ignored and mocked.
O.T.
H Rodham Clinton back in the teens on IEM.
Mortified Parrot, I should think.
Malcolm
13, I’m a pedant myself, but we all make typos or spell things wrong okasionaly.
Anyway, the poll does appear to come from a less than solid source. However, even the big pollsters regularly have moderate-medium differences in results. I suppose it’s just part of the innate randomness of the sample, even allowing for weighting and the like results will vary.
“His voters are not so vocal as Boris’.”
Knowing a few Livingstone voters, I totally disagree!
16. Are we even sure they polled in London? For all we know they might have rung up their Scottish respondents.
I may be cynical but this poll is a classic case of a “knockout” job for Boris’s price with the bookies.
The odds will lengthen and then the “pros” will steam in.
A totally misleading poll.
IMHO Boris is “home and hosed”
OT apologies
403
“340 Madasafish
If your forecasts are accurate then come after his 2010 election victory Pretty Boy Dave is going to be about as popular as poo in a toothpaste tube.”
Well I may be wrong.
Or.
Cameron knows it’s going to be tough - hnece vagueness on tax cuts.
In which case if he has any noius he;ll do all the unpoopular things in years 1&2 so they are forgotten by election time.
I cannot see cutting public spending ebing unpopular withe the tax paying public. I can see the Labour Party and those of benefits disliking it. But as they will never vote Conservative.. or just never vote … the calculation may be it does not matter.
All, I can say is that more government is worse government and Gordon Brown appaears to want to prove it. Maybe he’s a Conservative in disguise? Nope. Even the Conservatives would not tax the poor more.
11
9% for the LibDems is surely wrong. Agreed.
Overstated imo.
13 surely canversing is the more polite conversational approach to canvassing votes where the subject of politics if raised at all is only done so in an oblique manner?
14 - Mike, I will wager John Witherow, the editor of the Sunday Times and fellow alumnus of the Univeristy of York, £200 per percentage point that Johnson/Livingstone/Paddick collectively get less than 89% (rounded to nearest percent) of the first-preference vote on May 1st.
With 1000 responses, the MoE of this useless poll should be about 3% - I’m shifting the spread 9% down from MRUK’s figure, meaning for him to lose, they must have an MoE of greater than 3x what is tolerated in professional polling.
I accept all Mike’s reasons for dismissing this poll, but I would also offer another.
I find the best way of judging polls is to explore the trend produced by the SAME polls being commissioned by the SAME papers. These figures are a farce (as we don’t know what the company would have said 2 weeks ago) and, I suspect, YouGov’s and Mori’s specific figures are also wrong in that they understate others. However the trend seemed to be to Boris with Mori and to Ken with YouGov.
If YouGov on Monday show a further movement towards Ken I think he’ll get it. If, however, there is no movement, I’d go, reluctantly, for a Boris win.
14 Like the confidence,think I would prefer to follow the money(mike)than this Sunday Times offering.
13 Thank you for that, another triumph for state education, i must have been spelling it like that for years and nobody has said anyting.
Maybe they haven’t noticed
22 - I cannot see cutting public spending ebing unpopular withe the tax paying public.
However, every single penny of the vast amount of money spent by the state as a whole has, somewhere, or other, a lobby dedicated to defending it - and, in several cases, raising the amount. Cutting expenditure is not going to be a pain-free process. In order to make meaningful cuts, Cameron is going to have to upset more than one of these lobbies, and will have to be prepared to pay an electoral price for it.
Mike - it might be worth challenging John Witherow in his own paper tomorrow.
The address to send it for publication (need to include postal address and contact telephone number) is
letters@sunday-times.co.uk
I tend to give more credence to polls by The News of the World
GORDON Brown’s chances of winning the next general election are heading SOUTH fast.
That’s Luton South to be precise.
Because today we can reveal Labour is struggling to hold on to the KEY constituency that MAKES or BREAKS governments.
In every election since 1951, the party that won Luton South has got into power. Labour MP Margaret Moran retained it by a comfortable majority of 5,700 in 2005.
But a News of the World poll that will send a CHILL down Brown’s spine reveals the HOUSING COLLAPSE and CREDIT CRUNCH has left the two major parties neck and neck and eaten that majority down to NOTHING.
And the Tories could EASILY make the 7.5 per cent swing required to give them the seat.
One traditional Labour voter told us: “I’d rather cut off my own legs than vote Labour.”
How can London be any different??
re 31. Sean Fear is a resident of Luton South.
Is it a good thing for the Tories to be seen to have this election bag - theirs to lose so to speak?
If the polls show the Tories ahead nationally and neck and neck in London…..
(a) If Ken wins it will not be seen to undermine the national polls.
(b) If the Tories win in London, it will be seen to be an even bigger deal.
[From a betting point of view, it may scew the market to your advantage.]
If Kens vote wants to ’stop the Tory’ it will turn out if Boris is in front or neck and neck.
Too far in front and BoJo’s vote might be lazy.
Its not good for the LibDems who might not think its worth bothering and I suppose how their vote breaks may have some limited impact on the others.
31 It is worth remembering , though, that the Tories still mamaged to hold Luton South in 1992!
29
Agreed. But the lobbies for the cost cuts I propose largely do not support Cameron anyway.. the unions, civil servants and those on long term benefits.
In the long term the economic advantages will show through.. and with a five year term IF action starts in year1 there is a chnce of seeing results before an election..
Tony Balir admits he wasted his first term by doing nothing….
And IF Cameron wins the next GE - given the economic backdrop I paint - do you think Labour will be a effective Opposition? I suggest it could take them 10 years and 3 attempts before they find an electable leader.
After all Gordon Brown is doing his best to destroy party cohesion over the 10% tax rate - without any Conservative help. Just imagine the harm he will do in the next two years as the Budget deficit mounts and he is forced into an emergency tax raising budget@>.. probably late 2009 cos by the nature of the man he will delay and delay. Just in time for a 2010 election.
2.5% on VAT is my guess. Income tax is subject to an prior manifesto promise tho’ as a politican’s promise is worthless..
The NofW poll, as it stands, is hardly a systematic study. Luton South is particularly interesting because, demographically, it appears to have swung away from the Tories in recent years. In 2005, the Conservative share of the vote actually fell marginally: and there was something like a 10% Lab-LD, almost certainly due to anti-Iraq feeling. Conservatives have been running at third place in the lcoals.
34. How does that alter the pattern?
MRUK did even worse in estimating the regional vote share in Scotland in 2007:
They predicted Labour 36% (actual 29.2%), SNP 37% (actual 31.0%), Conservative 11% (actual 13.9%), Lib Dem 11% (actual 11.3%).
Useless.
37 A neck and neck result in 1992 would have implied a hung Parliament at the time - rather than Major’s majority of 21.
36 - the demographics of Luton South have changed since the 1990’s. The area has an increasing Asian population, who have in the past tended to vote for Labour.
39. Yes but you can’t seriously do that from one constituency. Unless you’re Peter Snow….
41. I thought you were arguing the other day that this is pretty much exactly the sort of thing you *can* do from by-election results, which are even more random?
41 That s fair enough - but ,in itself,it would tend to imply a strong swing to the Tories - rather than the avalanche suggested by Yougov.
re: 31 - the Sean Fear effect! Well done Sean.
Most pollsters are very wary about individual constituency polls. There is a real problem getting a proper sample and a long record record of such surveys getting things totally wrong.
We have not seen the NOTW detail but my view is that we should not over-state its importance. And as Rod C says - it is just one seat.
35 - It’s difficult see that being feasible. Cuts of that size and scope would take more than two years to accomplish: they involve such huge and complex changes to the shape of the state that it’d probably take two Parliaments to get a programme through. While you can argue that the groups involved aren’t primarily Tory, they could still be formidable if roused - someone in relatively low-paid work and a mortgage who’s considering voting Conservative might be extremely worried if they think that the safety net beneath them if their job goes belly up might be in danger. A programme of that size would need some offical pledges beforehand, which would be tailor-made as far as Labour propagandanists are concerned. You’d also encourage the core left to turn out and vote in greater numbers, which, while disproportionately confined to safe areas, would still pose a great threat to the Conservatives.
Besides, Labour probably have a fair chance of regrouping in the event of a Conservative victory as long they don’t lose in a landslide, which is unlikely from the electoral starting post at the next GE. A party riven by the extremism and division of the early 1980s would certainly allow the Conservatives a lot of leeway, but it’s very unlikely that the same opportunity will recur in the same way so soon. Even Mrs. Thatcher was not nearly so bold with economic expenditure. Your programme might work as a result of a really major economic slowdown, and be followed through in the resulting recovery, but not until then.
KEN: 28% THINK IT IS TIME TO GO
“Livingstone’s main worry, that he will be a victim of “time for a change” sentiment, is also supported by the poll. While 62% think he has been a good mayor, nearly half of these, 28% of the total, think it is time for him to go. A further 23% say he has been a bad mayor and should go.”
——-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3779912.ece
I liked that number, even from a useless poll.
AA Gil is on the campaign trail with Livingstone in tomorrow’s Sunday Times (after his previous article on Boris).
47 - “I liked that number, even from a useless poll.”
Why?
According to Anthony Wells Luton South is Tory target number 140. So at a rough estimate (UNS) that would give the Tories about 340 seats and a small majority if they took all seats from both Labour and the Lib Dems, or about 330 if the swing was purely Lab-Con.
I’d hazard then that this NOTW poll fits in with what we’re seeing in the national polls - the Tories well ahead but only around the border-line of majority government territory.
on the Sunday Herald website
Poll slump hits Brown ahead of poll
8:46pm today
Gordon Brown is facing more bad news with signs that Labour’s bitter infighting is damaging its standing with voters.
As campaigning for crucial local elections enters its final phase, a poll for the Sunday Mirror found the party’s rating had slumped 3% in less than a fortnight.
The Tories now have a 10 point lead, on 40%, while the Lib Dems have gained two points at 19%.
The research by Populus will cause particular concern in Downing Street because it suggests David Cameron’s team are more trusted to guide Britain through the credit crunch fallout, by 31% to 29%.
The survey was carried out on Wednesday and Thursday, while Mr Brown was in the US and senior Labour figures were openly sniping at his leadership and the decision to scrap the 10p income tax band.
If the results were repeated at a general election they would give the Tories a narrow overall majority of 25 seats.
The poll also coincided with a slew of dire warnings about falling property prices and economic slowdown.
More than half (52%) of respondents said they believed their house would fall in value during 2008, compared to just 16% who expected prices to go up and 13% who said they would stay the same.
:: Populous interviewed 1,006 adults from across the country by phone, and weighted the results to represent the electorate. The previous equivalent poll was conducted between April 4 and 6 for the Times.
The Times poll suggests that 62% think that Livingstone has been a good Mayor. How did this compare with other polls. I thought it was far less than 62%
The issue is whether the number of voters (so many of whom don’t work and don’t want to work) with illegitimate children, which Labour has done so much to ‘reward’, will outvote the ordinary decent people on poor wages but who wish to improve themselves by working, who have been hammered by the budget.
It is the duty of everyone who wishes to improve themselves and who cares about their country and its Society to vote Conservative.
Gordon Brown is unfit to be PM and his party are unfit to be in government.
51 40% in Populus? That’s a very good rating, only third time since 2005.
Yes, 10% tory lead seems unremarkable currently but in a populus thats very good news for them
If Paddick really does score in single digits, then the pressure on Clegg will be huge.
55 - True, but if I read Anthony Wells’s site correctly 10% is the largest Tory lead from Populus since 2005 (could that be ever?)
56 - if the gap between Ken and Boris continues, the squeeze has to come from somewhere, and it will be Brian Paddick who will suffer.
This will do wonders for Gordon amongst his MPs:
from The Times:
“Behind the scenes last week he is said to have been shaking with anger while defending the measure [scrapping the 10p rate], blaming his own backbenchers for failing to explain the policy more effectively to their constituents.”
There hasn’t been a constituency called Luton South at every election since 1951, so it is a bit difficult for it to have been the bellweather claimed by the News of the World.
John O, trust all well in your “neck of the woods” - just to let you & others know that Andrea has kindly submitted an Italy post-election article, which is now “in the studio” and should be on general release for the Sunday evening international slot, all being well.
62 per cent thinking Ken has been a good mayor is barely credible imho
61 - Paul, Many thanks. Fine here in deepest Hersham in campaigning mode ;). Yes, Andrea very generously let me have a sneak preview of his article, and it’s right up to his usual exemplary standard!
62 - that was my thought and wondered what other pollsters had suggested
Mr James Gray MP up to his usual!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=560732&in_page_id=1770
62. Why? I’m pretty, er, rightwing - but if forced to decide if Ken had been a good mayor or a bad mayor, I’d say “good”.
He’s run the city quite effectively. I approve of the Congestion Charge. I think he’s handled crime reasonably well. He was good at the Olympics and represented London well after 7/7, he has also been surprisingly deft in promoting London as a business centre.
I despise his socialist showboating - all the Chavez/Qaradawi stuff - and I object to lefty hypocrisy over his kids-and-concubines - and I dislike the whiff of corruption - nonetheless I think, on the whole, he has been a good and independently-minded mayor. Especially in comparison to some of the alternatives we were given - like Dobbo or Norris.
So, if I think this, I can well believe that a majority of Londoners also think he has been a “good” mayor - while still ardently believing it is time for a change, and that Boris deserves a go (like me).
Supporting Bojo and rejecting Labour do not preclude seeing the good things in Red Ken’s reign.
Can anyone do a calculation along the following lines?
(1) What was the “Ken effect” in 2004? - ie how much better did Ken do vs Norris than Lab vs Con?
(2) Calculate Lab to Con swing since 2004 (based on national poll averages).
(3) apply (2) to get predicted London Lab/Con result
(4) Assume the same Ken effect (as at (1)) to get predicted Ken vs Boris result.
NB. I know Boris is a better candidate than Norris but the above would give a sense check - ie does Ken need a bigger “Ken effect” this time in order to win?
66 fair point
66 - Ballot is secret and all that, but did you vote for Ken in 2004?
66
Pretty good summing up seant
67 Dont forget to include what the london cabbie effect might be..
66 - Expresses exactly how I think about it.
That worries me.
Again off-topic but after all the huff on both sides, this is by far the best and even-handed analysis of the “clinging to guns and religion” remarks I’ve seen:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=f9944ce3-fc34-4112-8f1a-34e7e6a7b7c9
67 - Ken got 250,000 votes more than the Labour Party in 2004.
Any thoughts on the magic disappearing Betfair “most seats on London assembly” market?
Over £2000 matches - now you see it; now you don’t. Now £0 matched!
73 - A good article but, once again, someone who doesn’t understand the meaning of the term ‘to cling’. You have to have something to cling to it; Obama didn’t suggest, as the writer imagines, take up guns and religion as a substitute for something lost, he suggested that what they lost made them ‘cling’ to what they had left. A minor point but it explains his confusion.
Missing word and iffy tenses, second try -
73 - A good article but, once again, someone who doesn’t understand the meaning of the term ‘to cling’. You have to have something to cling to it; Obama didn’t suggest, as the writer imagines, that people took up guns and religion as a substitute for something lost, he suggested that what they lost made them ‘cling’ to what they had left. A minor point but it explains his confusion.
Barely two months ago a post saying that Tories had a Full Roger lead over Labour, especially from Populus, would have sparked off high excitement. Tonight barely a ripple of interest even with locals coming up.
re 59 I can’t believe that Brown is still going round saying the package has to be taken as a whole. doesn’t the idiot understand that if you didn’t pay tax at 22% then the cut to 20% is completely irrelevant
New thread - Populus records its biggest ever Labour deficit
69. No, I didn’t. I have been twice tempted to vote for Ken, but never have actually done so.
In 2000 I voted Tory, out of some residual loyalty to Maggie (!); I believe I voted UKIP in 2004; though I can’t definitely remember - I do recall being unimpressed by the Tory candidate (was it Norris then?)
I will enthusiastically vote BoJo this time.
72/81 - And so the parting of the ways, and order is restored to the Universe once more…
I have been to Luton on a few occasions. Its not to be recommended.
But if you want to see whats wrong with modern Britain then please make the effort …
All those rhetorical questions, Mike.
Which I suspect is your democratic way of suggesting the poll is not worth the bogroll it’s tallied on?
81 - did you put a second preference when you might have voted UKIP?
no 67. -
In 2004 Livingstone got 685.5K first choice, and Norris 542.4K. Second choice was 142.8k versus 124.7K.
The big story was that 320,000 (17 percent, I think) second choice votes were binned for being incorrectly filled in. That could have made a big difference. Is it true that you don’t have to use a second vote this time, and your vote will still count?
“They predicted Labour 36% (actual 29.2%), SNP 37% (actual 31.0%), Conservative 11% (actual 13.9%), Lib Dem 11% (actual 11.3%).
Useless.”
So they predicted a 1% SNP lead and the SNP won by less than 2%. Meanwhile other polls were showing the SNP well clear of Labour. Okay, the absolute numbers were off, but they’re hardly the first company to overstate the two leading parties in a tight race. They also predicted (correctly) that the Greens would be wiped out.
If this had been Westminster, or an FPTP race, then the lead becomes one of two major factors, but in a FPTP/PR hybrid race, the absolute numbers are very important. To get them so wrong implies a flawed methodology, and not signing up to the BPC invalidates them as a political pollster in my eyes. I recognise that other pollsters get things wrong, but to be out by two-times the MoE on the biggest parties (easiest to predict) is just shameful.
Then YouGov deserve to be lambasted for their performance too. They called the SNP constituency vote 4% too high the day before the election. And 6% high a week before the election. Indeed they consistently (6 consecutive polls) showed the SNP winning by 6%-10%. They won by less than 1%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Scottish_Parliament_election,_2007