Anthony Butcher

I think that it is worth addressing what happened. UKIP told the press that internal polling showed UKIP on 22%, nearly three times the actual result. Clearly something is very wrong there.

I can see several possibilities:

1. The public were lying (for whatever reason) in large numbers.
2. The sample was statistically invalid (i.e. only 50 people asked).
3. The campaign team messed up and miscalculated.
4. The canvassers misrepresented what was actually said.
5. We lied.

Whatever the cause, I presume that journalists will now disregard future statements about internal polling, unless they are useful for their own agendas.

ryansoton

I know the local Lib Dems claimed that the poll we used was taken from the euro elections 2004.
whatever the case it was horribly wrong

chikrodah

Past experience (over 25 years) of canvassing shows:

1. Most people don't want to be invited to choose a political party on the doorstep. Those who aren't pro any particular party will tell UKIP they like UKIP, LibDems they always vote LibDem, etc. It's a fact of life. Experienced canvassers never take what they're told at face value.

2. Most political householders will do whatever they can to keep a canvasser talking for as long as possible - it reduces the number of other households that can be visited that evening. They lie too.

3. Journalists almost always disregard statements about internal polling (unless it disadvantages the party doing it.)

4. Don't shoot the messenger. Check your pre-election stats with the marked register. Then target the non-voters.

harryaldridge

I must admit i was slightly concerned when this was released. I always think these kind of things are just asking for trouble. Talk about setting yourself up for a fall!

Unless the idea was maybe to convince the voters that UKIP was worth voting for because it had a chance of success!

Very difficult to guage. Since we could never know how they might vote, it is very easy for them to brush off a question with "maybe" or "yes i am considering", when in actual fact they will stick with their traditional allegiences.

I came across a guy on Thursday evening who admitted he wavered at the last moment. He was going to vote UKIP, and his ife did, but he wavered and voted Lib-Dem at the last moment. Why? he said it was difficult to break the habbit fo voting Liberal for many years.
Most likely, although i am no statistician. You only need about 1,000 to determine the general election even with the vagueries of constituencies and swing etc.
Unlikely i think. They probably did have a poll that suggested 22% support, but the poll was probably not accurate.
Possibly. Unless you are an exprenced pollster, it is very difficult trying to guage non-commital responses into a likely intention.
Possibly, but less likely i think. Why bother to release a fake poll, unless as i said above they thought it would spur wavering supporters into voting UKIP if they believed we had a chance.
I think you're right. It may have backfired on us. Although in the grand scheme of things, if we do some serious changing as a party and adopt a full range of policies and soften our approach as is being suggested by everybody on this forum, the ground we should gain should overshadow this. The papers ignoring UKIPpolling statistics in future elections is hardly the worst outcome.

Roger Gough

Whilst other parties might do it, what is the worth of us asking people how they might vote? Please - someone tell me. So that we can say 'Told you so'? Did we really waste resources in this way?

mkpdavies

I think 5 is a pretty safe bet. The words "private poll", should have been the clue.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Lib Dems

Ted Bovis

Easy to criticize when you didn't even show up to do any work in Bromley, isn't it?

mkpdavies

Who's that aimed at? I was there a couple of times.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Lib Dems

Anthony Butcher

I am not sure who that was aimed at, but Bromley did not in any way suffer from a lack of support. When activists weren't present, the local teenagers were hired to deliver leaflets.

If anything, the area might have suffered from over exposure. I have heard anecdotal evidence that some houses received as many as 13 leaflets from UKIP. More is not necessarily better, I think.

Without meaning to have a go at you personally, what you have just done is what the 'cabal' always do - they ignore the questions being asked and target the messenger. I see it time and again. How will we ever learn anything if nothing is questioned?

Only one person on this forum thinks that the election went well, so obviously we need to take a look and see how it can be improved for next time. The canvassing also obviously went bizarrely wrong or we lied. That should also be questioned so that it doesn't happen again.

Bluemerle

Saying that UKIP support was at 22% must have sent alarm bells ringing in the Tory camp. Thinking their candidate could be beaten by Nigel they preferred staying at home. Next time tell them UKIP will be lucky to get 2% and they might feel it is safe vote for us, believing that we don't stand a cat in hell's chance of winning.