UKIP surge to 22% ahead of Thursdays Local Elections as Tory smear campaign backfire

[Chippiewill]

Thats why polls are weighted, to fix errors like that.

Frankly I'd be more skeptical of a weighted poll than an unweighted poll.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Frankly I'd be more skeptical of a weighted poll than an unweighted poll.

It depends, I mean if you have a bog standard election thats similar to the last (ie three main parties which will have more or less same demographics voting for them, same time of the year, weathers more or less the same) then weighting can produce more accurate poll results.

But when you have things like increased tactical voting, a fourth party incursion or a unforeseen event it makes it unreliable. I mean there's debate over whether polling organisations are right to leave UKIP out of the prompt question these days - the polling companies feel so, but may change closer to the election if its proved that adding them to the prompt produces better results. Postal voting these days also makes it difficult and unpredictable.

Pretty interesting polling is, I always like reading the analysis' by Peter Kellner, Anthony Wells and Mike Smithson.

[AgnesIO]

I can't believe what i'm seeing. Just now the Telegraph has released two stories..

Cameron suggests bringing forward referendum on EU membership - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...fore-2015.html

Cameron suggests ending ring fencing of the foreign aid budget - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-suggests.html

Put two and two together as to why he's suddenly coming up with these suggestions. It's not hard.

Trouble is, nobody believes him anymore.

Of course he will say this. I don't think a referendum really bothers him at all. A) Not binding (albeit they pretty much are if you ever want the vote again) and B) Do you genuinely believe people in the UK are THAT Eurosceptic to vote to leave? Because I don't see it.

People don't vote in elections on national issues, nevermind European - people vote on local issues and what will soonest affect them.

[Inseriousity.]

Who actually gets asked to participate in these polls because there seem to be a hell of a lot of them through the year and I've never seen any invitations - my guess is that it's just readers and supporters of whichever publication sets it and probably a very small proportion of those even. Will be good to be rid of the Lib Dems at least whatever happens

Our house got called by the Office of National Statistics asking us to do a survey. was all about how happy we were about the present and future so I reckon it was for that happiness index Cameron got ridiculed in the media about. I agree though, how you word the questions can influence the outcome so I don't think it's wise to put your hopes into 1 poll.

Of course he will say this. I don't think a referendum really bothers him at all. A) Not binding (albeit they pretty much are if you ever want the vote again) and B) Do you genuinely believe people in the UK are THAT Eurosceptic to vote to leave? Because I don't see it.

People don't vote in elections on national issues, nevermind European - people vote on local issues and what will soonest affect them.

While I don't think the British public have europe on their list of priorities (although I know euroskeptics would say that what is on their list of priorities is hampered by europe), having a referendum puts it in the spotlight that I doubt many people would just ignore it simply because it wasn't on their priority list.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Of course he will say this. I don't think a referendum really bothers him at all. A) Not binding (albeit they pretty much are if you ever want the vote again) and B) Do you genuinely believe people in the UK are THAT Eurosceptic to vote to leave? Because I don't see it.

People don't vote in elections on national issues, nevermind European - people vote on local issues and what will soonest affect them.

The vast majority of polls show the British public do want to leave the European Union. If they are so sure of winning the referendum, then why do the constantly refuse to hold one? they refused to hold one over the Maastricht Treaty, Labour over the Lisbon Treaty and now an in/out referendum. The only reason a referendum is being talked about is because Tory MPs with wafer-thin majorities are kacking themselves over the purple peril. I don't think people understand just how bitterly divided (especially) the Tory Party is over this issue. The topic is a box of explosives.

If the establishment thought they'd win a referendum, they'd hold it tommorow.

While I don't think the British public have europe on their list of priorities (although I know euroskeptics would say that what is on their list of priorities is hampered by europe), having a referendum puts it in the spotlight that I doubt many people would just ignore it simply because it wasn't on their priority list.

While the EU doesn't poll high on voters concerns, its important to note that most other areas of policy (economy, immigration, agriculture, fisheries, environment, energy etc) all are heavily impacted by the issue of the European Union.

But nevertheless, its important to note now that the UKIP vote has gone far beyond the single issue of the EU.

[AgnesIO]

The vast majority of polls show the British public do want to leave the European Union. If they are so sure of winning the referendum, then why do the constantly refuse to hold one? they refused to hold one over the Maastricht Treaty, Labour over the Lisbon Treaty and now an in/out referendum. The only reason a referendum is being talked about is because Tory MPs with wafer-thin majorities are kacking themselves over the purple peril. I don't think people understand just how bitterly divided (especially) the Tory Party is over this issue. The topic is a box of explosives.

If the establishment thought they'd win a referendum, they'd hold it tommorow.



While the EU doesn't poll high on voters concerns, its important to note that most other areas of policy (economy, immigration, agriculture, fisheries, environment, energy etc) all are heavily impacted by the issue of the European Union.

But nevertheless, its important to note now that the UKIP vote has gone far beyond the single issue of the EU.

Oh yes, because referendums are such quick, easy things to carry out. Not saying they need four years, but clearly they take time.

Also, yes polls can say a lot of things - but when push comes to shove? Pfft.

---------- Post added 02-05-2013 at 12:45 AM ----------

Our house got called by the Office of National Statistics asking us to do a survey. was all about how happy we were about the present and future so I reckon it was for that happiness index Cameron got ridiculed in the media about. I agree though, how you word the questions can influence the outcome so I don't think it's wise to put your hopes into 1 poll.



While I don't think the British public have europe on their list of priorities (although I know euroskeptics would say that what is on their list of priorities is hampered by europe), having a referendum puts it in the spotlight that I doubt many people would just ignore it simply because it wasn't on their priority list.

In actual fact, the last referendum (on AV), just 42.2% of people actually bothered to vote. And if people did vote to leave, I reckon it would be because the only people who bothered to vote are the ones who want to leave (which is why one should question the democratic legitimacy of any referendum anyway).

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh yes, because referendums are such quick, easy things to carry out. Not saying they need four years, but clearly they take time.

Also, yes polls can say a lot of things - but when push comes to shove? Pfft.

They are pretty easy to organise actually, Cameron and the Tories have already had two years to hold one and they still have another three years - so why they are talking about some distant and vague promise of one in 2017 I don't know .... the realist in me suggests they are trying to con us yet again into voting for them just as the same con was played by Labour in 2005 and the Tories and Liberals in 2010 regarding EU promises.

As for actually winning a referendum, oh I agree. The amount of propaganda that will be flowing from the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats and news outlets with scaremongering rubbish such as '3m jobs will be lost' may very well scare people into voting to stay in.

But the fact they still refuse to hold one tells me they're terrified of us giving the 'wrong' answer - just as the Irish, French and Dutch did.

[AgnesIO]

They are pretty easy to organise actually, Cameron and the Tories have already had two years to hold one and they still have another three years - so why they are talking about some distant and vague promise of one in 2017 I don't know .... the realist in me suggests they are trying to con us yet again into voting for them just as the same con was played by Labour in 2005 and the Tories and Liberals in 2010 regarding EU promises.

As for actually winning a referendum, oh I agree. The amount of propaganda that will be flowing from the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats and news outlets with scaremongering rubbish such as '3m jobs will be lost' may very well scare people into voting to stay in.

But the fact they still refuse to hold one tells me they're terrified of us giving the 'wrong' answer - just as the Irish, French and Dutch did.

As I say, I think the answer may well be yes to leave - but only 30% of people will bother to vote, and the vast majority that vote will be the ones who desperately want to leave. The majority of people won't vote on it, showing they clearly don't care enough.

Me personally? I'll be voting to stay.

[-:Undertaker:-]

As I say, I think the answer may well be yes to leave - but only 30% of people will bother to vote, and the vast majority that vote will be the ones who desperately want to leave. The majority of people won't vote on it, showing they clearly don't care enough.

Me personally? I'll be voting to stay.

If you think we should have our laws made over in Brussels and be slowly taken into a federal Europe via stealth then thats an entirely valid opinion to hold, just as Ken Clarke and most of the establishment believe. But what my issue is, is that we're not being given the option as to whether we want to have a vast proportion of our laws made in Brussels and to become a mere province of a future Federal Europe.

I want that honest and open debate, and I firmly believe that given the full facts - the British public will opt for independence and self government.

[AgnesIO]

If you think we should have our laws made over in Brussels and be slowly taken into a federal Europe via stealth then thats an entirely valid opinion to hold, just as Ken Clarke and most of the establishment believe. But what my issue is, is that we're not being given the option as to whether we want to have a vast proportion of our laws made in Brussels and to become a mere province of a future Federal Europe.

I want that honest and open debate, and I firmly believe that given the full facts - the British public will opt for independence and self government.

By firm facts,I presume you would like BOTH sides of the argument given - not just the anti-Europe esque ones?

Also, you could argue that Britain speaks in each election. Basic argument is, you democratically elect individuals to speak in parliament for you - if you vote a pro-European party into parliament, demanding a referendum is silly. If you really want to leave Europe (and have no opinion on any other policy area), vote UKIP.

If you don't want to leave Europe, vote Lib Dem, Labour or Conservative - as none of the latter parties will be leaving anytime soon.