Could reverse tactical voting open the door for Michael Howard?.
May 25th, 2004
-
Need the Tories be so gloomy about the Westmister seat distribution?
A number of Tory supporters are seeking to raise their General Election hopes by suggesting that the Westminster seat distribution that seems so skewed to Labour might not be as bad for them as it appear. There’s been a particular focus that this factor could be partially off-set by the anti-Tory tactical voting of 1997 and 2001 “unwinding”. Could this happen and what would be the effect?
A major study after the 1997 election put the number of Conservative seats that were lost as a result of tactical voting by Lib Dems switching to Labour at 25-35. Almost all of these seats were retained in 2001 and the evidence is that there was an average tactical dimension amongst Lib Dem supporters amounting to about 3% of all those who voted.
The question that political gamblers are interested in is what happens if at least part of this tactical element “unwinds” at the next Election. What if the Lib Dems who were ready to vote Labour to keep the Tories out decide that in the post-Iraq environment that they will return to their party fold. What happens if showing disapproval for the war becomes more important in many of their eyes than switching to Labour to maximise the anti-Conservative vote.
-
In this case all the General Election projections based soley on a “Universal National Swing” might be wrong. Maybe the Tories are in a better state than seat projections based on the latest polls are showing. Maybe the moves in the betting markets to the Tories have been right. Maybe Michael Howard could after all be the Prime Minister after Tony Blair/Gordon Brown?
There were two types of tactical voting at the last two General Elections: –
Labour supporters switching to Lib Dem. Our view that these tactical votes will largely stay intact. In campaigning terms the Lib Dems are brilliant at targeting. Where there are sitting Lib Dem MPs Labour supporters are going to take little convincing that switching is the best way of opposing the Tories. It might be that if the General Election looks like a close race then more Labour voters will move over. The Lib Dems will be a natural home for the Labour people opposed to the war.
Lib Dems switching to Labour. The Lib Dem supporters who switched to Labour in 1997 and 2001 are a different matter and clearly a proportion will return to the Lib Dems given the decline in popularity of Tony Blair’s government.
To try to assess the electoral affect Anthony Wells has amended his General Election predictor programme to factor in this element. But he does not discriminate between Lib-Lab and Lab-Lib tactical switches. We think that he should and our estimate is that the Conservatives will be 10-15 seats better off at Labour’s expense.
This does make some difference to General Election seat predictions but, it should be emphasised, the overall seat structure is still very much tilted in Labour’s favour. Taking the May Populus poll findings this is how the Westminster seats split on a uniform swing and taking into account some tactical voting unwinding in Labour seats wons with Lib Dem support.
Populus Poll: CON 36%, LAB 32%, LIB 22%
Based on Uniform National Swing these vote shares convert to this new House of Commons
CON 245 seats; LAB 305 seats; LIB 65 seats
Factoring in a 14 seat Labour loss due to tactical voting this becomes
CON 259 seats; LAB 291 seats; LIB 65 seats
Thus Labour are still 32 seats ahead even though they are 4% behind in the popular vote. Thus the unwinding affect is going to help Michal Howard but its affect can be over-stated. It might make the overall result less “unfair” than it might otherwise have been.
In future seat projections on Politicalbetting.com we will factor in this element with Labour seats only.
MessageSpace Advertising
There are actually a number of factors that upset the assumptions of the uniform swing. We\’ve already dealt with the new Scottish boundaries, the unwinding of existing tactical voting and the possibility of new tactical voting.
If you wanted a moreaccurate projection you\’d also need to take account of regional differences in the swing. For example, you can look at the last Populus poll and calculate the share of the vote in each of the 5 regions they use. It shows that the Lib Dem swing is concentrated in the South-West, Wales and the Midlands, with their vote dropping marginally in the North. Labour\’s vote has dropped pretty uniformly across the country, but the highest drop is in the North. The Conservative vote has actually dropped in the South-West, but has surged in the North.
The number of respondents in each region is far too small to make these figures reliable, so think of it as an illustration of what could be rather than a projection of what is, but it gives figures of CON 278, LAB 291, LD 59 as opposed to CON 272, LAB 307, LD 51 on a uniform swing (this is using the old Scottish boudnaries and the unadjusted Populus figures); a difference of 12 in the Labour majority.
Different swings in different regions make a big difference - but even that pretty rough and ready, obviously swings can vary widely within regions but there is no way we can predict it. At some past elections larger swings have occured in marginal seats - obviously if this happens again it would cut the Labour advantage - but there is no way of predicting whether or not it will happen again or not.
Finally there is question of differential turnout. If Labour turnout slumps only in its safest seats the electoral system would be even more \”biased\” in favour of Labour; if Labour turnout slumps in marginals but stays the same in its heartlands the bias would even out somewhat. The same for the Conservatives.
There are plenty of reasons why uniform swing projections are faulty. Some, like tactical voting, we can make a guess about how they\’ll pan out. Others we are flying blind. The sad truth is though that, however flawed, it is the best system we have before we start relying upon personal opinion rather than polling results. My own personal prediction is that, as the Conservative vote overtakes the Labour vote we will see the bias in the system gradually fall and that - in practice - the Conservatives will only need to beat Labour by a few percentage points to be the largest party (obviously we would need a larger lead to obtain a majority). That isn\’t based on figures or projections though - just gut instinct and a smidgin or wishful thinking.
There is another factor: the extent to which the Lib Dem vote could be squeezed in the event of a tight election. Over the last two elections the result has (with hindsight) been a foregone conclusion from the start and, particularly in 2001 this has been reflected in the media coverage. In the absence of what should be the main story in a General Election ie. \”who will form the next government?\” the media have had to go looking for other angles. In such a situation the Lib Dems are inevitably going to get more coverage, which (on the assumption that all publicity is good) will help them. There was also a huge amount of time devoted to issues like tactical voting (Billy Bragg\’s campaign for example) which is similarly to the Lib Dem advantage as it compliments their election literature and strategy perfectly.
The question is whether all this would be lost in a close election, perhaps kept alive by the 24hr news media but not on the terrestrial bulletins.
The argument about the \”unwinding\” of the tactical vote is all very well, as far as it goes.
But what about a further \”winding\” of tactical voting?
Is it not possible that there could be an INCREASE in tactical voting in those constituencies where the Lib Dem candidate is well placed to oust the Tory - Taunton, West Dorset, Maidenhead, Haltemprice, and - shock, horror! - Folkestone?
And what about tactical voting in such places as Norwich South, where the Tories could easily switch to the Lib Dems in order to get rid of Charles Clark?
How much are you taking into account recent local election results?
What are the current odds on Michael Howard retaining his seat?
I have to add that I think that Richard is mistaken.
In the case of a tightly fought election, surely the electors are now sufficiently enlightened to realise that their vote counts, not so much in the overall pattern of the national picture (where under the present system a single vote is more or less irrelevant), as in the local constituency (where it might make all the difference).
This awareness surely favours the continued development of tactical voting - where the great beneficiaries are always the Lib Dems.
I think that the implications of this are that the movement in close fought SEATS will favour the Lib Dems, at the expense of both the Tories and Labour.
This is all speculation of course, more a cause for debate than offering definitive answers. However I think if people haven\’t figured out that they can vote tactically against the Tories thus far they are unlikely to discover it at the next election. As for Michael Howard - I doubt there\’s the slightest possibility he will lose, and the Lib Dems will be wasting valuable resources if they try to concentrate on him. It would be the ultimate example of an electorate acting against their own interests to vote out a potential Prime Minister, given the advantages that having one
the PM as your MP inevitably brings.
If it were a matter of definite answers and not just speculation about the future, betting on the results would be impossible, wouldn´t it? So speculation is valid - trying to calculate what the electors might be thinking when they come to vote. So two more points:
1. If the vote is close, people are more likely to vote tactically in order to keep out the party they like least. Why did the Lib Dems win Tauntaon and the Isle of Wight in 1997, but lose them in 2001? It seems obvious (to me) that Labour voters indulged in the luxury of NOT voting Lib Dem - so the Tories gained two additional seats. If the result is likely to be tighter between Tories and non-Tories, it is likely that there will be an INCREASE in tactical voting, in favour of the Lib Dems. This is why I thin the argument about \”unwinding\” the tactical vote is essentially unsound.
I am showing my colours, aren´t I?
2. But then so is Richard…… Voting for Michael Howard is not in the interests of anybody (or not of very many), since his track record shows him to be a disster. Who could possibly want more of the same? Richard, but who else?
In Folkestone, the Lib Dem vote went up from 26.9% to 32.1% beween 1997 and 2001, while the Labour vote went down from 24.9% to 20.2%. The tactical position is much clearer now than it was in 2001. The further proof of that is the collapse of the Labour position in the local elections and enormous advance of the Lib Dems. I wouldn´t bet on Michael Howard´s being re-elected…..
michal howard is very racist against gypseys has i am one and what does he want use to do
As a Canadian I also share the strangeness of Parliamentary Democracy. It seems its structure encourages the incumbent to remain in power virtually forever. The absence of fixed election dates allows the incumbent to call an election when the polls are in their favour. Who decides when to redraw the electoral districts?
So is the reason Labour can win a solid majority even losing the popular vote because they command many Labour strong ridings with lower populations?
Faramir - see some of the comments here: http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2005/04/05/new-market-on-the-popular-vote/
OK - getting a handle on it. Except how could Lib-Dems steal Conservative seats? The Lib-Dems are fanatics - at least from what I read in their policy. They are left left of the American Democrats - if Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky had to create a political party the Lib-Dems would fit the bill.
Anyways it is rather laughable now how us in North America were told by our media that Tony Blair would pay for his support for troops in Iraq. He is undefeatable. And his support has now risen to 40%. And the Lib-Dems - who I suspect are the Iraq War protest vote - have stalled. The only way I can see Tony “paying” for his support will be an attack from within his own party.
In Canada, such a thing would be impossible. Our party leaders lead with an iron fist. THEY toss MPS out - not the other way around. In fact voting against the line of the party leader gets one the backbench or worse. Perhaps England still retains inter-party democracy that Canada lacks?
debt consolidation program…
debt consolidation program debt consolidation program debt consolidation program tpgldshyoa…
Voyeur web…
Voyeur web Voyeur web Voyeur web Voyeur web Voyeur web Voyeur web Voyeur web qxfwnkkavs…