Monday Call - July 26 2004
July 26th, 2004
-
Populus poll means - “Lib Dems four seats off being official opposition: Labour losing majority”
Apart from a marking down of the Lib Dems the betting markets have hardly reacted to yesterday’s sensational Populus poll in the News of the World which when translated into seats means that Labour would not have an overall majority in the House of Commons and the Lib Dems would be just four seats short of being the official opposition. The figures with changes on the last Populus poll three weeks ago are:-
LAB 30 (-3): CON 28 (-1): LIBD 28 (+4)
Putting these figures into Martin Baxter’s election predictor we get the following Westminster seat distribution based on applying the partys’ poll shares on a uniform national swing:-
LAB 323 seats : CON 147 seats : LIBD 144 seats: OTH 32 seats
-
The poll reinforces recent Politicalbetting.com calls on the number of Lib Dem and Labour seats and opens up the unprecedented prospect of a three-way fight.
But before we get too carried away we need to see other similar trends from other pollsters. The next, is likely on Friday from YouGov - the internet pollster which has in recent months shown the Lib Dems to be on lower levels than the other firms.
If the Lib Dems can sustain this and go into the election campaign almost level pegging it takes away the big argument that they always find (see picture above) - that a vote for them is a wasted vote and could pick up large number of ex-Labour voters disillusioned over the war and other measures. In that situation anything could be possible.
-
For there’s been a seismic change in the Lib Dem poll position in relation to Labour compared with this stage last time. In the final half of 2000 Mori had the party at an average of 38% behind Labour while the figure for ICM was 30%.
While all the focus has been on the Tories inability to capitalise on the Government’s difficulties support for the Lib Dems has been surging and it does not take much of a shift for whole new scenarios to be created.
OUR MAIN CALLS
MessageSpace Advertising
Very interesting news and well worth waiting for!
On the basis of the more moderate forecast of seats (based on your use of Martin Baxter´s Battlemap), we find Labour losing 80 seats, the Tories losing 18 and the Lib Dems gaining 93.
This does not quite add up, but presumably may be explained in terms of \”Others\” and the reduction in the number of Scottish seats.
These are, of course, net figures. One theme that has been consistently advanced in recent postings is that a reduction in support for Labour will automatically lead to a gain for the Tories, even if they do nothing. (In the present scenario, they are doing less than nothing, but let that not get in the way of a good argument….)
So, if the Tories do indeed pick up seats from Labour, there has to be an adjustment in terms of a loss of additional seats to the Lib Dems (presumably not to Labour).
If they lose 18 seats, their losses (on the principle of a uniform swing) have to include Oliver Letwin in Dorest West, David Davies in Haltemprice, Tim Collins in Westmorland and Theresa May in Maidenhead.
However, if they pick up even ten seats from Labour, the corresponding losses (on the same principle of a uniform swing) have to include Michael Howard in Folkestone, John Redwood in Wokingham and Nicholas Soames in Mid-Suses, all to the Lib Dems, of course.
It would be interesting to see a book opened on the next Tory leader, but rather difficult to see who the runners might be……..
John, on your first point - \”reduction in support for Labour will automatically lead to a gain for the Tories, even if they do nothing\”. In 2001, there were a number of marginals where Labour voters stayed at home but the Conservatives failed to take advantage.
There were 15 seats* in England and Wales where Labour won in 2001 despite polling fewer votes than the Conservatives had in 1997. That is, where the Conservatives \”should\” have won in 2001 but didnt only because they failed to get all their core voters to turn out.
*Dorset S, Braintree, Monmouth, Lancaster/W, Kettering, Northampton S, Welwyn/H, Bexleyheath/C, M Keynes NE, Hammersmith/F, Wellingborough, Ilford N, Rugby/K, Putney, Hemel H
That list is slightly different from the usual \”most marginal\” list. It will be interesting to see if the Tories can be more efficient in such constituencies next time.
Am I not right in saying that you are being extremely misleading here? Martin Baxter\’s battlemap only accounts for Labour and Con share of the vote and assumes an \”Others\” rating of about 6-7. A Lab 30 Con 28 LibD 28 would not give the result you state (as shown by the Anthony Wells model). The result you give would only occur if the Lib Dems got close to 40% of the vote. Similarly for your \’example\’ giving the Lib Dems 500 seats.
Backing the Lib Dems to be the Government within 10 years might be a fun bet, considering the number of \”2nd places\” they are building up, but that\’s all.
If you try the Wells engine you get LibDems on 90 or so and Labour with a big majority. You would hope though
not expect such a result would lead to a change in electoral system, particularly if there was a low turnout too.
I\’d be interested to see how Martin Baxter himself reacts to this. I was just taking the poll figures and putting them onto his Battlemap chart.
On the other hand the chart, of course, takes no account of tactical voting - either the potential unwind of anti-Tory or anti-Labour - which both could be very significant elements which would favour the Lib Dems.
The Battlemap also takes no account of Lib Dem targetting which has, in the past pushed the numbers up.
The Wells model WITHOUT any element of anti-Labour tactical voting gives LAB 345: CON 176: LIBD 92. Factor in 20% of the third party switching and you easily get to the Baxter projection for Labour. They only need to go down 22 seats to be below the 324 required for a majority. It\’s the Lib Dem - Tory mix where the differences emerge. In my view targetting and tactical voting will push the Lib Dem total up quite a lot - especially if the election is seen as a three horse race.
If I remember rightly, Martin Baxter adjusted his model to allow 13% for Northern Ireland, Nationalists, BMP, UKIP, Respect, Greens etc, as though their votes were all interchangeable. Since such a percentage vote is unlikely to turn itself into real seats, his current model surely underestimates the number of Lib Dem seats (who are assigned the remnant, after calculating the Labour and Conservative seats).
One problenm that I have with the Anthony Wells model is that the effect of any unwinding of an anti-Labour tactical vote is attributed solely to the Tories. The number of Lib Dem seats remains constant, however many seats you type in to the model for \”unwinding\” purposes. Again, therefore, the number of Lib Dem seats to be won is surely an under-estimate.
I suspect people might wait and see whether the Lib Dem poll ratings are sustained before putting serious money on. The difficulty with spread betting is that if you want to win serious money you have to stake serious money to do it! In my experience there is less risk and better returns by betting on a few good seats with favourable odds at election time.
Thinking about the picture to accompany this story, do you not think it odd that so few people vote Lib Dem under PR? Perhaps they should be careful what they ask for - they might get it!
I agree with Neil - you have to wait until the conference season at the earliest before taking a punt. After Brent - didn\’t the Lib Dems hit 30% in the polls?
Assuming a mid/late Sept monkey hangers by-election and assuming another Lib Dem win I\’d expect the Lib Dems to continue to ride relatively high. But as we head towards the new year (and General Election) minds will concentrate on the next government - putting the squeeze on the Lib Dems (just like 1987 when the Alliance, as then was, was also consistently riding high in the polls). That election saw the Alliance share fall in the campaign rather than the usual third party rise.
Obviously if a couple of dozen pro-Europe MPs from both other parties defected it might sustain something bigger (and weaken the other parties). But short of that I\’ll stick with a high thirties Labour share, a low thirties Tory share and a low twenties Lib Dem share - meaning modest Lib Dem gains, another Labour landslide and the Tories returning less than 200 MPs again.
The ICM poll last September after Brent had LAB 35%, CON 30% LIBD 28% and the LDs did slip back considerably afterwards. The party was hit by the decline of IDS and the media honeymoon with Michael Howard that has now come to an abrupt end.
The difference between now and the 80s is the war. I cannot see the wounds healing by the General Election. As Alan Watkins had it yesterday in the Indy - those who were attracted by New Labour in the 90s have now fallen out of love with them. This is long-lasting and the only place these people can go is the Lib Dems provided the party looks credible.
Fair points Mike - you may well be right. I just feel that the war will have less resonance by next Spring - but who knows? I guess that\’s why bookies are always rich and punters usually poor!
Sean you have an interesting point. Under PR the Lib Dems would lose their status as only credible protest party and beneficiary of tactical voting.
There\’s a fair number of committed Lib Dem supporters in the electorate. They will stick with the Lib Dems under a PR system.
There are also a fair number of people who vote for them because they like their local Lib Dem councillors, or don\’t like the two main parties. Many of them would drift to smaller parties under PR. I wonder whether the Tories are right to continue to oppose PR, since the European elections suggest that right-wing parties can do well under a PR system in this country.
You wouldn\’t have guessed it from the areas the Lib Dems have made gains in the last year, but their policies on the economy and public services have shifted massively to the right over the last year.
That may have something to do with the fact that Vincent Cable understands his brief, while Matthew Taylor didn\’t.
Has anyone considered that the seats in Wales currently held by the Welsh nationalists are likely to fall to labour next time out?
stock market education…
stock market education He therefore harness’d Peyrouse the same as his pollen-sacs, giving her self-doomed drill in stock market education. The submarine pascat from Hongkong formerly landed here, but now escalates Galligas…