Is it all going downhill for UKIP now that they've fallen below 10% in the polls? Watch

Everglow
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
(Original post by The Independent)
A new poll suggests that support for Ukip has fallen below 10 per cent for the first time since November 2013, as Nigel Farage prepared to launch his election campaign.

As the party leader gave a speech in Essex in which he declared that Ukip was “picking up support from across every social spectrum”, an Ipsos Mori poll for the Evening Standard showed the party down two points at nine per cent.

The Lib Dems were also down in the poll at six per cent – its lowest level for 25 years. Nick Clegg admitted to listeners on LBC Radio that his party had “clearly taken a hit in the national polls”.

Gaining from both their losses were the Tories and Labour, with Ed Miliband’s party up two and now firmly leading the way on 36 per cent. The Conservatives gained a single point, up to 34 per cent.

Nigel Farage’s own personal ratings have also received a hit, down five points since the last Ipsos Mori survey – but it is worth noting that half of voters said they could yet change their minds between now and the general election in May.

Also speaking today was Mr Miliband, who launched Labour’s education policy at his old school in north London.

A separate poll released today by Comres in association with ITV News showed that the Labour leader has gained some support over his recent disputes with British businesses.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10041358.html

So it seems like UKIP has taken a bad hit, both as a party and for Farage as a leader. It's true the Lib Dems have fallen as well, but I think UKIP are the more relevant zeitgeist for this general election.

What do you guys think anyway? Has the UKIP bubble burst now they've fallen below 10% in the polls for the first time in over a year?
0
reply
Maker
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
I think UKIP failed to consolidate their popularity when they allowed a lot of people to make stupid comments on social media. They also have very few policies that anyone knows about apart from immigration and Europe which people don't care enough about compared to the NHS and the economy. Farage failed to say anything about the economy when given the opportunity recently which is unbelievable for a party that aspires to national government.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by Reluire)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10041358.html

So it seems like UKIP has taken a bad hit, both as a party and for Farage as a leader. It's true the Lib Dems have fallen as well, but I think UKIP are the more relevant zeitgeist for this general election.

What do you guys think anyway? Has the UKIP bubble burst now they've fallen below 10% in the polls for the first time in over a year?
I think it was just a bad time for them. I don't think this result has much significance. Several other polls taken during/after the time of this one found UKIP with around 13-15% of the vote:

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_upload...lts-110215.pdf
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_upload...lts-100215.pdf
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_upload...lts-090215.pdf

:dontknow:
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Reluire)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10041358.html

So it seems like UKIP has taken a bad hit, both as a party and for Farage as a leader. It's true the Lib Dems have fallen as well, but I think UKIP are the more relevant zeitgeist for this general election.

What do you guys think anyway? Has the UKIP bubble burst now they've fallen below 10% in the polls for the first time in over a year?
The SNP have fallen as well.

Anybody think there's a correlation between the economy doing badly and a rise in fringe political parties
0
reply
Manitude
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I think it was just a bad time for them. I don't think this result has much significance. Several other polls taken during/after the time of this one found UKIP with around 13-15% of the vote:

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_upload...lts-110215.pdf
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_upload...lts-100215.pdf
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_upload...lts-090215.pdf

:dontknow:
Nice - thanks for posting.

I think it's really quite interesting going through some of these results. For example, the Greens and Lib Dems are both on around 7% (begging the question why Lib Dems are considered a major party and Greens are not if this trend continues!)

Also interesting to note that although Labour and Conservative both received around 33% of the voting intention from the most recent poll, only 18% of voters think Miliband would be the best PM as opposed to 36% in favour of Cameron. The implication (or rather, extrapolation) is that nearly half of Labour voters do not think their party leader is better than Cameron/Clegg or are not sure enough in him to make a clear decision whereas people who do not intend to vote Conservative still think Cameron would make a better PM!

Also interesting is that 15% of the people polled don't know who they're going to vote for yet, so that means that in an extreme case Lab/Con could get 45% of the vote OR UKIP could nearly equal them. I certainly wouldn't expect this to happen, but it shows that the election result is far from predictable, even with only three months to go!

I think that's enough analysis for one night, I'll stop before I bore anyone to death

The point is that UKIP are still polling above 10% and there are a LOT of undecided/floating voters. Exactly whether someone thinks that good or bad is up to them.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
The SNP have fallen as well.

Anybody think there's a correlation between the economy doing badly and a rise in fringe political parties
Have they?

According to recent polls support for the SNP in Holyrood is up to 6% higher than it was in the 2011 election. Support for the SNP in Westminster is over 30% higher than it was in the 2010 election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottis...election,_2016
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%28Scotland%29

Specific polls:
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net...14_FINAL_W.pdf
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net...land-day-1.pdf
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...02_Website.pdf

(Original post by Manitude)
Nice - thanks for posting.

I think it's really quite interesting going through some of these results. For example, the Greens and...
Well the Lib Dems have a lot of seats in the UK Parliament so I guess that's why they are still considered a major party. If they fail miserably this year and end up with like 5 seats then I assume they'd lose that status.

Since that 18% includes all voters all you could say is that at best only roughly half of labour voters support Ed Miliband. You could, say, have a Lib Dem voter that wants the Lib Dems in power but prefers Ed Miliband to Nick Clegg.

I can't comment on whether or not you're boring others here but I am certainly not bored with this. I love data!
0
reply
Everglow
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Anybody think there's a correlation between the economy doing badly and a rise in fringe political parties
Undoubtedly. Lots of people turn to fringe parties when the going gets tough. Why? Because those fringe parties know exactly what people want to hear - and because they're so small in the grand scheme of things, it's extremely unlikely they'll ever actually have to be held accountable to their words. It might be different if we used PR in the UK, but we don't, so small parties struggle hugely.
0
reply
Gnomes&Knights
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
According to Nigel Farage, Labour and Conservatives funded certain groups/associations using taxpayers money to put UKIP in negative spotlight by making them look bad. Wonder if what he is saying is true. If it is then that's the answer to this downhill.
0
reply
Manitude
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by SHallowvale)

Well the Lib Dems have a lot of seats in the UK Parliament so I guess that's why they are still considered a major party. If they fail miserably this year and end up with like 5 seats then I assume they'd lose that status.

Since that 18% includes all voters all you could say is that at best only roughly half of labour voters support Ed Miliband. You could, say, have a Lib Dem voter that wants the Lib Dems in power but prefers Ed Miliband to Nick Clegg.

I can't comment on whether or not you're boring others here but I am certainly not bored with this. I love data!
I suppose you're right that they are the third largest party in terms of current incumbent MPs however I think it would be very reasonable to say the number of MPs they will have after the next election will be a lot less! I personally wouldn't be surprised if some members of the current cabinet are no longer MPs given how seriously their ratings have fallen. I'm not even sure Clegg's seat is necessarily safe as it's a university constituency (Sheffield Hallam). Of all of the decisions this coalition government have made, students have the most right (in my eyes) to severely dislike the lib dems due to the monumental U-turn on tuition fees! I suspect that the lib dems are hoping that current students are ignorant of the changes they enforced ~3/4 years ago and will vote for them because they are traditionally seen as the main liberal party. In reality I predict large gains for the Greens. I'm currently undecided as to whether I think that is a good thing - personally I like a lot of their policies but the ones I disagree with are ones I vehemently disagree with.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Raymat)
According to Nigel Farage, Labour and Conservatives funded certain groups/associations using taxpayers money to put UKIP in negative spotlight by making them look bad. Wonder if what he is saying is true. If it is then that's the answer to this downhill.
I doubt that. It would make more sense for Labour to fund UKIP candidates in conservative-led swing seats as a means of diluting their vote and ensuring that Labour takes the lead.

(Original post by Manitude)
I suppose you're right that they are the third largest party in terms of current incumbent MPs however I think it would be very reasonable to say the...
I generally agree but I'd like to add that there is little correlation between the percentage of votes you get and the number of seats you get. Taking the Lib Dems as an example, in 1974 the party got 19.3% of the vote and only 12 seats while in 2001 they got 18.3% of the vote and 52 seats.

That's first past the post for you!
0
reply
Manitude
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I generally agree but I'd like to add that there is little correlation between the percentage of votes you get and the number of seats you get. Taking the Lib Dems as an example, in 1974 the party got 19.3% of the vote and only 12 seats while in 2001 they got 18.3% of the vote and 52 seats.

That's first past the post for you!
This is of course possible with FPTP. It's simultaneously a strength and a weakness of the system in my eyes. I don't know how many lib dem seats are in any way marginal. Might be something I'll look into in the future.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Manitude)
This is of course possible with FPTP. It's simultaneously a strength and a weakness of the system in my eyes. I don't know how many lib dem seats are in any way marginal. Might be something I'll look into in the future.
I did a few quick calculations on Excel using electorate data and found that in a three party system, assuming turnout is 100%, a party only needs 20% of the vote in order to get a majority of seats in Parliament.

#DatDemocracyDoe

It would be cool if all the votes for a party that actually got them a seat were counted. Would be cool!
0
reply
Manitude
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I did a few quick calculations on Excel using electorate data and found that in a three party system, assuming turnout is 100%, a party only needs 20% of the vote in order to get a majority of seats in Parliament.

#DatDemocracyDoe

It would be cool if all the votes for a party that actually got them a seat were counted. Would be cool!
Interesting.
Is that assuming that all constituencies have the same number of people in them or are you assuming that a particular party only stands in the smallest constituencies? I know in theory that's supposed to be the case but in reality there are quite large variations.
For example "Na h-Eileanan an Iar" had an electorate of 21,837 in 2010 but "Isle of Wight" had 110,924. Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...constituencies

I think it would be very difficult for a party to actually do this in practice unless they started locally and slowly spread out or specifically targeted seats which are easy to win.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Manitude)
Interesting.
Is that assuming that all constituencies have the same number of people in them or are you assuming that a particular party only stands in the smallest constituencies? I know in theory that's supposed to be the case but in reality there are quite large variations.
For example "Na h-Eileanan an Iar" had an electorate of 21,837 in 2010 but "Isle of Wight" had 110,924. Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...constituencies

I think it would be very difficult for a party to actually do this in practice unless they started locally and slowly spread out or specifically targeted seats which are easy to win.
That the particular party stands in the smallest constituencies.

You're right though it would be very difficult for a party to pull that off. Still, Labour did win the 2005 election with a majority of seats but only 35% of the vote.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
A single poll is meaningless, there is a reason that you should look at a rolling average, look what happened in Scotland when people panicked over THE only poll that put YES in front. Doing it properly we still see UKIP at about 14pc

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Is the plastic tax enough to protect the environment?

Yes (13)
5.6%
No (219)
94.4%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise