The past four daily YouGov polls for the Sun and Sunday Times have all put the Conservative lead at 6-7 per cent. That’s firmly in hung parliament territory: or is it?
If we plug the latest figures (Con 38 per cent, Labour 32, Lib Dem 17) into the swingometer produced by my YouGov colleague Anthony Wells on http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/swing-calculator, then those vote shares translate into the following seats:
Conservative 292
Labour 289
Lib Dem 39
Others 30
The Tories would be 34 seats short of the seats they need to secure an outright majority; and it would take only a fractional further swing to Labour for Gordon Brown to emerge as leader of the largest party.
The trouble is, votes might not translate into seats quite like that. Like most such calculations, the one made above assumes uniform national swing. YouGov’s latest figures put the Tories five points higher than in 2005, Labour four points lower and the Lib Dems six points lower. We get our seat figures by applying those vote-changes to every constituency, and seeing who wins each one.
In reality, of course, the movements are not identical in each seat. This does not matter if the variation from uniform swing is fairly random. In that event, seats which “should” change hands but don’t will be offset by the seats that “shouldn’t” change hands but do: the overall seat numbers should be about right.
The problems really start if the variations from uniform swing are NOT random. If marginal constituencies behave differently from non-marginal constituencies, then the votes-to-seats calculation will be wrong.
Here’s my guess. (And it has to be a guess: often people in key marginals make a tactical decision on who to support in the last days or hours of the campaign, so pre-campaign polls in marginals provide only limited help.)
I expect the Conservatives to win 10-20 more Labour seats than would be expected on a uniform national swing: this is partly because I expect some unwinding of the anti-Tory tactical voting that has helped Labour these seats in the past three elections, and partly because of the weight of Ashcroft money in these seats.
However, I expect the Tories to gain around ten fewer seats from the Lib Dems than uniform swing calculations would suggest – in the past many Liberal MPs have often managed to defy adverse national trends, as they build up a personal following.
In other words, I reckon the six-point lead in the latest YouGov poll is more likely to put the Tories 13-33 seats ahead of Labour, which is more likely to result in a minority Cameron government than a mere three-seat lead.
And if the Tory lead widens, it means that they need to to lead the popular vote by 9-10 per cent to secure an overall majority, rather than the 11 point lead suggested by uniform swing calculations.
I agree that the required Conservative lead will be less than the 11% that you get with a uniform swing assumption, but wonder if Peter’s being a bit moderate in his adjustments. I too would expect a higher swing in the marginal seats, for the reasons he suggests and also the number of Labour MPs standing down and forfeiting incumbency votes (and possibly the devalued status of incumbency in general in other seats).
But isn’t there also regional variation in swing? From all I’ve seen, the Conservatives are getting the highest swing in Midlands and Wales (where there are a lot of marginal seats), an adequate swing in the South to knock out most of their targets, and a low swing in Scotland and the North (where they have less potential to make gains). If this variation persists, it would help win them the election with perhaps only a 6-7% lead?
Against this, there’s also the possibility that differential turnout (Labour voters in safe seats not turning out, but Tory voters turning out in their safe seats) will widen compared to 2005 – perhaps making the target another 1% more difficult?
I’d expect a Conservative majority with a 7% lead on this basis. Would be interested in Peter’s, and others’, thoughts.
It’s hard to say for sure, there’s still alot of simple-minded thick people that still vote labour.
Lewis
Good points there,what do you think of the recent local by election results?
To this simple minded soul it seems Labour are doing better than many (myself included) think,what is going on?,when there are real elections held,not opinion polls.
I don’t think it is acceptable to describe any voters as ‘simple-minded’ or ‘thick’, Steve. All Parties have core voters who will turn out and vote for them regardless.. why else do any minority parties get any votes atall in this selfish ‘first-past-the-post’ system that we are saddled with.?
The forecasts being discussed make the fundamental error of disregarding these ‘other’ parties who, given the attractive prediction of a hung parliament, could do comparatively well this time.
Is there an issue with tactical vote unwinding, given the power of the Iraq war last time to move votes from LAB to LD?
Might be an issue in some southern marginals, where LAB and CON are main contending parties. If 2005 saw tactical voting from LAB to LD, or high stay-at-home rates in LAB, it could damp down the LAB-CON swing in 2010.
I think it will be far more complex than a simple swing analysis can hope to predict. IMHO the unknowns are:
1. With the real threat of a Tory win, will the labour vote in Tory/Lib Dem marginals transfer to the Lib Dems? And if so could we see the Lib Dems taking seats off the Tories?
2. In 2005 a large number of Labour voters stayed at home. They got what they wanted, Blair was punished for the Iraq War but the Tories were kept out. Will these left of centre voters stand by and allow the Tories to get in, or will they hold their noses and vote Labour?
3. A hung parliament is a once in a generation / lifetime opportunity for the Lib Dems to force through at referendum on Proportional Representation. Labour look the more likely to concede this. Will Lib Dem voters in Tory / Labour marginals support labour in the hope of getting a hung parliament? Assuming that Lib Dem voters punished Blair in 2005 for the Iraq war was there still a tactical voting effect in 2005?
4. Cameron reneged on a ‘caste iron’ guarantee of a referendum on Lisbon, as did the other parties. But this is not an issue for most Lab / Lib Dem voters, will Eurosceptic Tories punish Cameron with a vote for UKIP? Or will they be kept in line by the thought of a Tory victory.
As Steve says people who vote Labour might be, “simple-minded and thick.” However at least some of them, unlike him, will know that ‘a lot’ is two words and not one and also that Labour should have a capital letter.
I welcome comments from people like Steve as it shows how annoyed the more rampant Tories are becoming as the Polls swing back to Labour. Even today there is a suggestion in The Guardian that the increasing difficulties of the SNP will only benefit Labour. It would be ironic that, after all the dust has settled, it was found that the turning point was the silly Tory poster campaign showing an air-brushed Dave, widely defaced. My favourite: “We can’t go on like this…With suspicious minds.” Dave was appropriately quiffed by the graffiti artist.
Don’t you think that it would be a good idea to find out who is standing , and for which party, before any calculation regarding hung parliaments can be made?There remains the possibility of one or more Unionist party “merging” with the Conservatives. There is the possibility of a UKIP pact. No-one really knows whether the possibility of a hung parliament will boost the party share of those who might benifit from PR being introduced. Can anyone say with any authority that the BNP won’t be doing a Galloway?
Don’t you think that it would be a good idea to find out who is standing , and for which party, before any calculation regarding hung parliaments can be made?There remains the possibility of one or more Unionist party “merging” with the Conservatives. There is the possibility of a UKIP pact. No-one really knows whether the possibility of a hung parliament will boost the party share of those who might benifit from PR being introduced. Can anyone say with any authority that the BNP won’t be doing a Galloway?