14.07.2010

Electoral moods of Lviv region residents: June 2010

General assessment of the situation

  • Residents of Lviv Oblast overall evaluate the changes in Ukraine in general and in Lviv Oblast in particular quite pessimistically. At the same time, they assess developments in the oblast slightly more positively than those in the country as a whole.
  • Only 9% of respondents believe that the general situation in Ukraine is improving, 40% think it has not changed, and 43% believe it is deteriorating. Likewise, only 9% believe the situation in Lviv Oblast is improving, 45% say it has not changed, and 38% say it is deteriorating.
  • It is worth noting that residents of Lviv city feel more optimistic than residents of the rest of the oblast. An interesting pattern emerges: Lviv city residents rate developments in the region almost twice as positively as developments in Ukraine, while rural residents, on the contrary, rate changes in the country more positively than changes in the oblast.
  • The most confident and satisfied with developments are supporters of Viktor Yanukovych and the Party of Regions. The most disappointed are supporters of Civic Position (A. Hrytsenko), BYuT, Our Ukraine, and Svoboda.

Parliamentary election ratings

  • If elections to the Verkhovna Rada were held next Sunday, the winner in Lviv Oblast would be the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc (BYuT) with 24.8%.
  • Second place would go to Svoboda (13.4%), followed by Front for Change (7.8%), Our Ukraine (7.2%), Party of Regions (5.2%), Civic Position (A. Hrytsenko) (2.8%), and Strong Ukraine (2.6%).
  • About 1% each would support UDAR (V. Klitschko), the Lytvyn Bloc, the People’s Movement (Rukh), KUN, and For Ukraine! (V. Kyrylenko).
  • Other parties together account for about 3%, 7.2% would vote for none, and 22% would not vote or are undecided.
  • Compared to November of last year, the largest losses were recorded by Our Ukraine (from 19% to 7%), BYuT (from 28% to 25%), and Front for Change (from 9% to 7%). Meanwhile, Svoboda increased from 9% to 13%, Civic Position from 0.6% to 2.8%, and the number of undecided voters nearly doubled.
  • Support for the Party of Regions remains stable at 5–6%, while Strong Ukraine (Tihipko) rose after the elections but by June had fallen back to around 3%.
  • Lviv Oblast Council election ratingsLeading parties are BYuT (22.5%), Svoboda (16.3%), Front for Change (7.2%), and Our Ukraine (7.1%).
  • They are followed by the Party of Regions (4.8%), Strong Ukraine (2.6%), and Civic Position (2%).About 1% each support For Ukraine! (Kyrylenko), People’s Movement, and the Lytvyn Bloc.
  • Other parties total about 4%, 6.7% would vote for none, and 24% are undecided or would not vote.Compared to parliamentary elections, nearly all parties lose support at the local level except Svoboda, Our Ukraine, Strong Ukraine, People’s Movement, and

For Ukraine!, while the number of undecided voters increases.

  • Presidential election ratings in Lviv Oblast
  • The leading candidates are:
    • Yuliya Tymoshenko – 25.7%
    • Arseniy Yatseniuk – 10.6%
    • Oleh Tyahnybok – 10.5%
    Followed by:
    • Viktor Yushchenko – 6.8%
    • Viktor Yanukovych – 6%
    • Serhiy Tihipko – 5%
    • Anatoliy Hrytsenko – 2.9%
  • Tymoshenko, Yatseniuk and especially Tihipko have higher personal ratings than their parties, while for Svoboda and Our Ukraine, party support exceeds the personal rating of their leaders.Trust in national-level politicians
  • The leaders in trust (sum of “trust” and “rather trust”) in Lviv Oblast are:
    • Oleh Tyahnybok – 46%
    • Arseniy Yatseniuk – 43%
    • Yuliya Tymoshenko – 42%
  • Next group:
    • Serhiy Tihipko – 29%
    • Anatoliy Hrytsenko – 28%
    • Volodymyr Kyrylenko – 28%
  • Trust levels:
    • Viktor Yushchenko – 21%
    • Yuriy Kostenko – 19%
    • Viktor Yanukovych – 11%
    • Mykola Azarov – 11%
    • Volodymyr Lytvyn – 9%
  • Tyahnybok is the only politician with a positive Trust Index (+2%), improving by 12 points over six months.
  • Hrytsenko improved by 25 points (largest growth), Tihipko by 23 points.
  • Yanukovych’s index improved by 10 points, while Lytvyn’s worsened by 16 points.
  • Yushchenko’s Trust Index declined the most (–28 points).Satisfaction with regional authorities
  • Only 19% are satisfied with the head of the Lviv Oblast Council Myroslav Senyk, while 43% are dissatisfied.
  • Only 13% are satisfied with Governor Vasyl Horbal, while 45% are dissatisfied.
  • Compared to November, satisfaction with the head of the Oblast Council fell from 29% to 19%, and with the Governor from 32% to 13%.
  • Main priorities of local authorities, according to respondents:
    • Fighting corruption (44%)
    • Reducing unemployment (34%)
    • Road repairs (27%)
    • Fighting crime (26%)
    • Containing inflation (25%)
    • Agriculture development (23%)
    Attitudes toward key political issues
    • 70% support electing local councils by majoritarian system rather than party lists
    • Only 7% support canceling Bandera’s Hero of Ukraine title, 77% oppose
    • Only 9% support extending the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, 82% oppose
    • Only 13% support granting regional language status to minority languages
    • 20% support joint ownership of Ukraine’s gas transit system with Russia and Europe
    • 62% believe freedom of speech is being restricted under Yanukovych
    • 51% believe pressure on business is increasing
    National identity markers
    • Only 4% would support making Russian a second state language
    • 57% support NATO membership (down from 60%)
    • 15% support joining the Single Economic Space (EEC)
    • 66% support EU membership (down from 74%)

Methodology

  • Population: residents of Lviv Oblast aged 18+
  • Sample: 1200 respondents (including 400 in Lviv city)
  • Method: face-to-face interviews
  • Margin of error: ±2.8% (50%), ±2.4% (30%), ±1.7% (10%)
  • Fieldwork: 19–29 June 2010
Contact form

Have questions?

Please, fill in the form below and we will reach out to you soon.

Дякуємо! Ваша заявка отримана, ми зв'яжемося з вами у найближчий час.
Ой! Під час відправлення форми сталася помилка.