Tag Archive | "national share"

Poll position (Oct 1 2009)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Poll position (Oct 1 2009)

Posted on 01 October 2009 by admin

The Tories are doing better in marginal seats than the national polls suggest, warns Lewis Baston

Even now, unbelievably, some Labour people seem to be complacent about the next general election. The argument goes that the Conservatives, because of electoral system bias against them, need to be 11-points clear of Labour in the national share of the vote to have a majority. This is true only if the swing is uniform, ie the same across the country. While uniform national swing is usually the best rule of thumb for translating poll figures into seats in the House of Commons, it is only an assumption, not a rule. For instance, Labour did significantly better in 2001 than uniform swing predicted because Labour MPs first elected in 1997 often boosted their majorities.

The local elections in June 2009 were a test of how far ahead the Tories really need to be to win an election. The ‘national equivalent vote’ of the parties (ie the local results translated into what they would mean in an election across the whole country) was, depending on whose projection you look at, the Conservatives on either 35% or 38% and Labour on 22% or 23%. This means a swing of 8% or 9% from Labour to Conservative, slightly more than the 7% they need to win a majority under the uniform swing assumption. Given that governments rarely repeat their worst mid-term performance in a general election, some people assume that an overall Conservative majority is unlikely.

The results in the key marginal constituencies where there were local elections in June should explode any such complacency. While the national swing appears to have been 8-9%, it is much higher in most of the marginals.

In the constituencies where more or less any swing will switch the seat to the Tories or LibDems, it seems about average – although 8% or 9% is easily enough to do the job. The ominous finding is from the constituencies where the Conservatives need a bit more of a swing to gain from Labour. In these cases the average swing is 13% or thereabouts, which would cut a swathe through Labour’s parliamentary representation. There were 61 Labour-held seats with county elections in June. Only four would have survived an election like the county elections. This is because the Conservatives seem to be getting the big swings where they need them.

In some of the target seats, the Conservatives are simply blowing Labour away – swings of 18% in South Ribble and 17% in Tamworth are extremely large by any comparison, and reflect a particular loss of support in areas where New Labour did particularly well in 1997. In others, Labour’s traditional vote has also melted away, as in Leicestershire North West where the BNP won what had been the safe Labour ward of Coalville, while the Conservatives have stood still or gained slightly. In this set of elections in the new towns, where Labour has done poorly for years in local elections, the swing may not appear quite so bad, but this often reflects the Conservatives losing votes to the right – UKIP, BNP and English Democrats – which might not help in general election conditions. Some coastal areas where Labour prospered in 1997 also have high swings – Dover, Morecambe and Waveney all have swings in the 15-16% bracket.

The Conservatives are not stupid in matters of political strategy, and know that they need either a 7%-plus national swing, or to do better in the marginals. They have focused their energies, campaigning messages and money (from Michael Ashcroft and elsewhere) on the marginals they need, and it seems to be paying dividends.

Local elections, although they are strong evidence, do not automatically reflect what would happen in a general election. People sometimes vote differently in local and national elections, and a different range of parties and candidates stand in each election. Turnout is also a lot lower, and the voters who stay at home in local elections but vote in general elections may not share the views of those who vote in council elections.

Labour needs to do two things in the short term – recover ground in the national polls, and raise its game in the marginal seats. In the longer term, Labour also needs to scrap an electoral system where pouring resources into a tiny number of seats can win party control over the government, and replace it with one where there is a genuine national dialogue.

Lewis Baston is from the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform and author of Politico’s Guide to the General Election. To read the full research see here.

http://www.progressonline.org.uk/articles/article.asp?a=4735

Comments Off

Should Gordon go for it? (24 September 2007)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Should Gordon go for it? (24 September 2007)

Posted on 24 September 2007 by admin

Labour 07: The polls look good for Labour, but thanks to the peculiar workings of the British electoral system, that is not necesssarily good enough.

Labour meets at Bournemouth in a slightly giddy state of optimism, inspired by a renewed increase in the party’s opinion poll lead to 6-8 points and other evidence including sensational local authority by-election gains in Worcester and Birmingham last week that the party is in an excellent position. Supposing the polls are right, this would hold out the hope of earning a pro-Labour swing since 2005 and an increase in the Labour majority. However, the one does not necessarily imply the other. One could have both a pro-Labour swing and a reduced majority thanks to the peculiar workings of the British electoral system.

The trouble is that not all votes have the same value. The overall result depends on the votes cast in the marginal seats. Whether Labour has 18,000 or 28,000 votes in Liverpool Riverside is immaterial to the result – the seat elects only one Labour MP no matter how many votes pile up. However, whether Labour has 15,000 or 16,000 votes in Portsmouth North is highly material, as it makes the difference between that seat electing a Labour MP and a Conservative MP. Under Blair, Labour’s share of the vote suffered a severe slump (down from 43 per cent to 35 per cent) but while thousands of votes disappeared in the safe seats, support held up better in the marginals.

The risk Brown faces is that the pattern will reverse. Given that Labour’s majority allowing for boundary changes is 48, there is not much room for slippage if Brown is going to enjoy a manageable full-term parliament. If electors in safe Labour seats who stopped voting between 1997 and 2005 come back to the polls, it will boost Labour’s national share of the vote but not win any extra seats.

There is a strong possibility that Labour could do worse in the key marginals than national opinion trends might suggest. One reason is regional variation. Polls and local elections have seen the Conservatives adding votes in the south of England while doing poorly further north. It so happens that there are a lot of marginal Labour seats in the south and a 3 per cent swing from Labour to Conservative in the region would see 15 seats change hands. A swing of the same size to Labour in the north and midlands would switch only 9 from Conservative to Labour.

Another reason is party organisation and preparation. The Conservatives, in particular Lord Ashcroft, have poured resources into the marginals they want to win and worked hard – they may well now be considerably better than Labour at the campaigning on the ground and this could pay off in winning seats. In the seats Labour should hope to take off the Conservatives, most of them are constituencies Labour lost in 2005.

Newly-established incumbents tend to do better than the national swing in their first election (hence Labour’s nearly undamaged majority in 2001) and a small national or regional swing to Labour would not manage to counteract the incumbents’ bonus. While Kettering is highly marginal, requiring a tiny 0.2 per cent pro-Labour swing on the face of it, in reality it would probably take a national swing of about 2 per cent to fall. Given incumbency and regional variation, it would be quite a risk to go early without a solid poll lead of 8 points or better.

The incumbency factor also applies to Lib Dem MPs – while in principle a post-Blair party should recover ground among the liberal metropolitan electors who deserted in 2005, it may be difficult to dislodge MPs in areas such as Hornsey & Wood Green and Cambridge and Labour will also be exposed to further possible losses for instance in Oxford East and Watford. Labour also has some cause to worry about Wales and Scotland (from the Conservatives and SNP respectively) although the SNP danger has been overstated. There are only three seats which would change hands on a 10 per cent swing from Labour to SNP since 2005, and one is not comparing like with like if one starts from the 2007 Scottish Parliament results.

Before Jim Callaghan decided against an October 1978 election, he took a copy of the Times guide to the House of Commons on holiday with him and tried, seat by seat, to work out what an election result would look like. The best he could do was a hung parliament with Labour narrowly the largest party. Perhaps, somewhere in Downing Street, there is a heavily-thumbed and annotated copy of the last edition of the same volume, pointing to a Labour win by about 30 seats. Whether that is enough, and whether the risk of going now is greater than the risk of leaving the election for another year, is a dilemma Brown must face this week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/24/labourmeetsatbournemouthin

Comments Off

Who won? What next? (6 May 2005)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who won? What next? (6 May 2005)

Posted on 06 May 2005 by admin

Not since 1974 has it been less clear who has most reason to be pleased with an election result.

The Conservatives are clearly back in business as an opposition, have chalked up some impressive if patchy gains and improved their organisation in many key seats. But they are still almost certainly the wrong side of Michael Foot’s 1983 Labour low-water mark of 209 seats, and their ability to follow through to victory in a future election must be regarded as doubtful. Their vote share, in the third successive election, is in the low 30s.

Labour have another term in power, albeit with a dismally low national share of the vote of around 36%. Never has a government been elected with such limited support from the voters. From the heights reached in 1997, their vote share has slid most of the way back to where it was in 1992, before “New Labour” came in.

But perhaps this masks some structural strengths. This was not an easy time to have an election, and the government was boxed in to calling it for May 5th. Labour did not feel particularly popular and the Prime Minister was the focus for a lot of complaints – even aggression – from the electorate. Labour lost a lot of “natural” supporters in this election. Next time Blair will not be leader and the Iraq war will be several more years in the past. These voters need not be lost for good.

This is the Lib Dems’ dilemma. They shed some rural seats to the Conservatives (but also, to be fair, picked up a few new ones in return as well). But they cut deep into Labour’s vote across the country, and gained some massive victories in some of the most intellectual and academic Labour seats such as Manchester Withington, Cambridge and Bristol West, and claimed second place in swathes of urban England.

Their fear is the other side of Labour’s hope – that these are temporary protest votes that will return home next time. If so, and if the Lib Dems continue to hare after liberal-left votes, they are setting themselves up for future disaster in their traditional rural seats. They will eventually have to make choices that will alienate one substantial element of their current appeal.

The minor parties and odds and ends did well, a sign that there is discontent with the three-party system, let alone the two-party system. Labour rebel Peter Law won in Blaenau Gwent; George Galloway was elected under the Respect banner in Bethnal Green and Bow; and the amiable Richard Taylor held Wyre Forest quite easily. The Greens polled well without winning in Brighton Pavilion. And, worryingly, the BNP racked up considerable votes in several constituencies. The failures among the minor parties were UKIP, sidelined after last year’s Euro election success, and Veritas, as Robert Kilroy-Silk went down the plughole in Erewash and his colleagues polled derisory votes.

The campaign in 2005 may have been dull, but election night was thrilling. We live in political times again, after the strange lull between the 1997 election and the Iraq war. It’s going to be a turbulent parliament, a fascinating, rough ride for everyone. I can’t wait for the next election. Place your orders now for the Politico’s Guide to the General Election 2009…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/election2005blog/2005/may/06/whowonwhatne

Comments Off

Exit Poll Thoughts (5 May 2005)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Exit Poll Thoughts (5 May 2005)

Posted on 05 May 2005 by admin

A Labour majority of 66 is a bit less than most commentators have predicted (although I have gone for 46 in an office sweepstake). Labour people throughout the day have been incredibly jittery about some seats which had rather large majorities in 2001. A national share of 37% to 33% for the Conservatives implies a swing of 2.5% but the BBC’s seat projection suggests a much higher swing to the Tories in the marginals – perhaps 3.5 or 4 per cent.

The Liberal Democrats will be a bit disappointed to see their national share at 22 per cent with a net gain of only a couple of seats, but their vote is likely to be even more variable and difficult to predict than the share for the two main parties. The projection suggests one of two things has happened – either that the much anticipated strong swing to the Lib Dems in intellectual middle class constituencies (more to follow on this later) has not happened, or that it has been cancelled out by significant Conservative gains from the Lib Dems.

Of course, the 10pm figures might not be final – people keep voting until 10pm, and the late votes might tweak the figures up or down a bit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/election2005blog/2005/may/05/exitpoll

Comments Off