General Election Prediction time (RECOVERED)
November 30th, 2004
Let’s do some number crunching
With just over five months from the predicted General Election day of 05/05/05 it’s time we started making some forecasts of what we think might happen first in terms of the vote share and secondly the number of Commons seats.
LABOUR VOTES. Our formula is based in the chronic tendency of the pollsters to always over-state Labour. In two of the last three General Election every single poll from every single pollster produced an exaggerated figure. In the other election, 1997, the majority of pollsters did the same. So our formula is to take the average of the bottom two Labour shares in the most recent polls and then DEDUCT 1.5%.
TORY VOTES. If the US automated pollster, Rasmussen, does do UK surveys then we will take their Tory share and make no adjustment. They were the only firm to get it right last time. If not we will take the average of the highest two figures from the latest round of polls and ADD on 1%.
LIB DEM VOTES. The party seems to get about the same or slightly more than the highest polling figure so we’ll take the average of the top two shares from the latest poll round and then ADD on 0.5%.
CONVERTING VOTES TO SEATS. We’ll put the poll shares we’ve determined into the Baxter calculator and then make two adjustments: we’ll take 12 seats from Labour and add them to the LD total because of special targeting. We’ll also take 14 seats from the Labour total and give them to the Tories for “tactical unwind” - a controversial notion but one we believe will happen.
On current figures this produces the following “result”
Lab: 306 (33.5%)
Con: 237 (34.0%)
LD: 72 (23.5%)
The rest is easy - just put your bets on and wait for the money to roll in!
Latest spread prices:- LAB 345-353: CON 200-208: LD 71-75
Comments (77)
Comments
NOTE - ALL THE LOST COMMENTS HAVE BEEN STORED AT COMMENT 19
MessageSpace Advertising
This thread is now back and all the comments have been recovered.
Well most of the comments
I was looking forward to finding out what was on Innocent Abroad\’s link about London.
Sorry if we have lost some comments.
I think no-one is realising the radical nature of this election. There have been a couple of studies recently that show a third party close to a second in at the start of a campaign will inevitably leapfrog it (see New Scientist Jan / Feb 2003).
If Lib Dems go in to April 23 to 25 and Tories 29 to 31 the scenario, on these theories changes. Lib Dems have momentum, Tories get stuck. The only reason no-one is saying this is because it hasn\’t happened since 1924.
New times - new politics - Final result Lab 36 Con 26 Lib 29. Swingometers out the window
Of course Labour could come third like in the locals on June 10.
It still wouldn\’t make that much difference in terms of this particular election Graham (Cons would still probably be on 20-30 seats more than Lib Dems). It would however kill off any Tory hopes of returning to power within 40 years (because they would be hopelessly out of contention in too many seats)
And as for \’inevitable\’, well it didn\’t happen in 1983 or 1987
There\’s nothing inevitable in politics. As Alex says, Labour held second place in 1983 and 1987, despite the Alliance being close behind them.
In practice, if the Lib Dems were to win as much as 29%, it\’s probable that the bulk of that would come from Labour, which means the Conservatives would probably be in first place in terms of vote share, and would pick up plenty of Labour-held marginals.
Graham - running your scenario through Baxter gives Con 118, Lab 396, Lib 101.
What\’s the reasoning behind the reversal theory? Did it not take into account 1983 and 1987?
If you look at 1983 the Alliance polled 25% of the vote. The difference between now and then is that the party machines (and the electorate) have got more savvy, so the LDs gain 50-odd seats with 7% less vote share by efffective targetting and tactical voting. Their support is still too spread out as Baxter shows.
http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=6&id=mg17723861.800
Graham - is it this article by James Randerson? Refers to the US election in 2000 and a polling model where small swings have dramatic effects?
Graham at point 5 - could you give more of a pointer? I\’ve been looking through the New Scientist archives, and they don\’t seem to have anything relevant between November 2002 and March 2003.
(searched under \”election\”, \”parties\”, \”campaign\” and \”politic*\” )
Steve T - I found that one but it didn\’t seem to have anything implying \”a third party close to a second in at the start of a campaign will inevitably leapfrog it\”.
All - this is the gist of it I think:
\”Push me, pull me
New Scientist vol 175 issue 2357 - 24 August 2002, page 42
Put people together and they behave like atoms in a magnet. Welcome to the new physics of peer pressure, says Bruce Schechter
… He has also tried to model the process using what he once thought was the best model of democracy that physics had to offer. In this attempt, he assumed that the distribution of votes must be caused by \”clustering\”. Metallic atoms in solutions gather together to form clusters, whose size depends on the characteristics of the \”seed\” particle which initiates the process. Stauffer thought people would cluster around candidates in groups whose size depended on the attractiveness of their ideas. But when he modelled the election with the physics used to describe the clustering process, the result failed to match the real election data. The number of clusters of a given size gave a characteristic exponent of about 2.
Now this might be disappointing to advocates of the democratic process, who would like to think that it\’s all about people being drawn to the candidates and their ideals. It seems that is just plain wrong. According to Stauffer and his colleagues, we\’re at the mercy of peer pressure. It\’s social factors that strongly influence the outcome of an election. At the start of the election period, each candidate has their own group of voters. Some weeks go by, people argue with their friends, and a vote is taken. The results indicate that people are heavily influenced more by those arguments than by what the candidates do or say.
And if you accept that peer pressure has a lot to say about the democratic process, Stauffer has a further warning for would-be politicians. When the opinion polls come in halfway through your campaign, don\’t think that being in second place is OK. It\’s a disaster - even if a second-place final result would be good enough.
Stauffer obtained this insight when he ran a system whose population can hold one of four possible opinions covering the spectrum of beliefs from one extreme to another - call them A, B, C and D. People holding similar opinions can influence one another, so a block of four people who believe B would influence their neighbours to believe B if they currently believe A or C, but would not affect someone believing D. Start with a random distribution of opinions and let it run. Almost everyone, unsurprisingly, usually settles on the same opinion. Sometimes a second opinion survives, but the others are eliminated.
But the opinions that are eliminated are almost never the ones you\’d expect. Put your confidence in the halfway opinion poll rankings and you could be shocked. Stauffer ran 10,000 simulations of this evolution of four opinions. Whoever was second at half-time ended up coming third in 92 per cent of the simulations. \”To be first or third is good,\” Stauffer says. \”Second place is dangerous.\” The opinions that won were always moderate - either B or C - but the second place went to an extreme: A or D. When the electorate talk and influence one another, you\’d better watch out if you\’re looking like a comfortable runner-up.
This lesson seems consistent with the events of the French presidential elections held in April. The far-right candidate, Jean-Marie Le Pen, came from behind to oust the socialist Lionel Jospin in the first round of voting, much to everyone\’s shock. People were so outraged by the idea of an extreme right-wing candidate having a chance at the presidency that spontaneous protests broke out on city streets.
But Stauffer\’s result seems to indicate that a large group of people were initially close enough to the right-wing vote to be influenced by their more extreme neighbours. Add in the fact that this vote came almost exclusively from one block of the country, and the role of local influence seems obvious… \”
I think there\’s some mileage in the cluster theory for third parties - look at where LD seats are and you wonder whether the \”neighbour\” factor has something to do with it (overcoming the \”wasted vote\” argument, activism spilling over into neighbouring constituencies etc). I think there has been some comment on this effect before.
However, in true \”personal experience\” mode, I can\’t say I have active political discussions with amy of my friends or acquaintances any more, so its difficult to see how the influence model would work so well in the UK where politics is more of a taboo subject.
I\’m not sure quite how applicable this would be …
No account is taken of voter inertia (I\’ve always voted Tory/Labour/Liberal …). It seems to assume perfect knowledge of policies/beliefs of the options (which many pliticians would vehemently dispute).
It can\’t account for the Alliance coming third in both 83 and 87 (0.64% chance according to odds in the article).
It does say that centrist policies are best to win opinions, though.
Fair enough. I was asked for my own predictions so here they are: Lab 370, Con 170, Lib 80. If any of you Con 230+ brigade want to have a sizeable even money bet on under/over 200 please let me know.
This is a very interesting summary of election forecasting. Of particular note was the fact that one of the most accurate predictors of the final result was the spread betting (page 13)!
Rallings and Thrasher appear to be the experts on the merits of using local by-election results to model GE outcome - I think the results are mixed, to say the least.
While I think the Yougov and Populus (and Rasmussen?) figures for the Conservative/Labour vote split are going to be nearer the mark than the figures for ICM, NOP, and Communicate Research, I think there is a bit of wishful thinking here (obviously I hope to be proved wrong).
I think the outcome is more likely to be along the lines of Labour 36-38%, Conservative 32-34%, Lib Dems 21-22%, Others 8-10%. Allowing for targetting by the Lib Dems, and a reduction in anti-Conservative tactical voting, I would expect to see a result along the lines of Labour 345-350 seats, Conservative 205-210, Lib Dems 60-65.
Comment by Sean Fear — 30/11/2004 @ 5:13 pm | Edit This
Sean - my formula for the polls is based totally on what happened last time. I think it’s wishful thinking to assume that the uniform national swing will operate in the Baxter formula way.
Comment by Mike smithson — 30/11/2004 @ 5:17 pm | Edit This
Granted the polls were a long way out in 1992 and 2001, and out by a fair margin in 1997, I just can’t help thinking they’re bound to get it right sooner or later. At the level of gut instinct, I find it hard to imagine Labour losing so many seats in one go (although I’d obviously be pleased if they did).
Comment by Sean Fear — 30/11/2004 @ 5:21 pm | Edit This
Sean echos my comments on another thread.
It may well be wishful thinking to assume that the Baxter seat calculation based on uniform national swing will operate, but before we junk it shouldn’t we analyse how close it has been in predicting the right result?
It may not be completely accurate and it may underestimate Lib Dem seats, but I suspect it has been closer than any other methods over the last few elections.
Is it not inconsistent to say on the one hand that uniform national swing is dead and on the other to re-weight the current polls in based on their accuracy in predicting the same elections?
I’m more than happy to say uniform swing is dead - but if it is it won’t work all one way. If you say that the Lib Dems can win more seats thorugh speacial targetting, won’t the others parties be able to do so too? If so will they not make compensating gains back? If so isn’t this the same as a result based on uniform national swing - the totals are similar, even if the seats are different.
Comment by Dan — 30/11/2004 @ 5:29 pm | Edit This
My polling formula just eliminates the excesses and makes a minor adjustment based on previous performance.
I’ve put my head above the parapet with this forecast - it would be great if other users could add their predictions.
Comment by Mike smithson — 30/11/2004 @ 5:29 pm | Edit This
Clearly you are a very conservative Conservative
Comment by Jon — 30/11/2004 @ 5:29 pm | Edit This
Well, I came joint last in Anthony Wells’ European prediction contest, so I’m inclined to be cautious.
Obviously, I’ll review the position over the coming months.
Comment by Sean Fear — 30/11/2004 @ 5:38 pm | Edit This
My estimate for vote shares, using the Baxter formula, would give Labour a majority of around 100. I certainly couldn’t see them getting that sort of lead on my estimated figures.
Comment by Sean Fear — 30/11/2004 @ 5:40 pm | Edit This
I accept Mike Smithson’s experience of other elections. It was also he, however, who pointed put that previous elections are not always an accurate pointer to what happens this time.
I note another poster’s comment that next time, he knows of hardly any of his contacts who’ll vote for Blair. This is much more dangerous ‘experience’. ‘Dangerous’, because the chattering classes hardly knew anybody who voted for Mrs Thatcher after 1979, and she won 2 more elections. They dreamed up an ingenious explanation–’people held their nose and voted for her’, but wouldn’t own up to it. I don’t believe that Blair is at that stage with the ‘chav’ voters yet, and is unlikely to be by next May.
Comment by david kendrick — 30/11/2004 @ 5:54 pm | Edit This
You mean they allow chavs to vote???
Comment by Steve T — 30/11/2004 @ 5:55 pm | Edit This
I agree with the view that personal experience is not a good guide to voting intention. I know scarcely anybody who will vote Labour next time, but that’s certainly not a cross-section of the population.
Comment by Sean Fear — 30/11/2004 @ 6:00 pm | Edit This
To follow David’s point up I’ve yet to meet any Americans that voted for Bush, the Independent guys friends are just the sort of people who have been very pissed off by Iraq.
Comment by Will — 30/11/2004 @ 6:02 pm | Edit This
On the Alan Watkins formula of - “I don’t know anybody who is voting Labour” - I can add that since I stopped being a councillor I do not come into contact with anybody who admits to being a Tory. This is apart from Anthony Wells who I met for the first time yesterday.
Comment by Mike Smithson — 30/11/2004 @ 6:06 pm | Edit This
In the light of Mike’s formula, this also makes interesting reading: http://www.ukelect.co.uk/Nov2004/Forecast.htm
Their forecast of 2001 wasn’t bad
Comment by Steve T — 30/11/2004 @ 6:18 pm | Edit This
Lab 339, Con 214, LD 63, Nats 11, Ind 1, Others 0
Share I am more radical, Con 34, Lab 33, LD 26
Comment by Jon — 30/11/2004 @ 6:38 pm | Edit This
Steve T - UK elects vote share prediction of Lab 34: CON 32: LD 22 is quite close to mine. A huge number of seats change with minute changes in percentage points.
Comment by Mike Smithson — 30/11/2004 @ 6:44 pm | Edit This
Have UKelect forgotten about the Scottish redistribution?
Comment by Innocent Abroad — 30/11/2004 @ 6:48 pm | Edit This
If I’d looked at the site properly, they say they have ignored it.
Comment by Innocent Abroad — 30/11/2004 @ 6:50 pm | Edit This
I think Labour 36%, Conservative 33% and Lib Dem 22%
Seats wise I think Conservative 190-200 slightly more than predicted with UNS as I think in some areas there vote is increasing much faster and in most of the Northern cities it will continue to fall.
Labour 350-360 a bit less due to losses from both Conservative and Lib Dem targeting.
Lib Dems c. 70 5-8 from the Conservatives and 10-15 from Labour. I expect them to lose 2 or 3 to the Conservatives as well.
Comment by Will — 30/11/2004 @ 6:58 pm | Edit This
I’ve been referring people to “UKElect” for some time, their also notable for factoring tactical voting there was also a study published the economist which argued that if you eliminated tactical voting and had Labour on 35% Conservatives on 30% and the LDs on around 23% (I think those where the percentages) Labour still ended up with a majority of 70 instead of 90 with tactical voting.
That said I have been and remain deeply sceptical about Mike’s view on tactical voting and the overstating of Labour and the understating of the Conservatives in the polls.
IMHO Labour based on the polling I’ve seen over the last few months will end up with around 38 or 39% of the vote, I would even argue that between now and March Labour’s polling results will get better that they are at present, public reaction to the Bluncket incident seems to be almost supportive (good job by my mates a Old Queens Street then ) and it won’t effect the government at all, at the same time over the next few months until March the LDs will slip further in the polls (they’ll compensate in the campaign but nothing more than a 21-23% share IMHO).
It will be interesting to see if the Conservatives improve their ability to target seat this time around, a good barometer will be Northamptonshire a county with a string of seat which “should” be conservative, yet are not. However a serious Conservative problem is the way their vote is evenly spread across the country, added to this their ability thus far to improve upon their share of the vote has been pretty unsuccessful, a modest increase is very possible (as Mike suggest 34% seems about right).
As for the LDs I find it hard to believe that, as Mike has contended, that LD support is so critical to so many Labour MPs or that defections from Labour are so great that will Labour lose a majority of 150+, added to which support for the LDs is not coming from those who may have backed them in 87 or 92, but from voters who have been Labour voters in the past such as Muslims and “Guardian man and woman” and both groups are highly concentrated in certain seats, mostly already with hefty Labour majorities, further reducing their electoral impact.
Labour position is far more solid than Mike would like to think, support within most of the “core groups” is very solid, the problem there is turnout and the concentration on law and order is part of a desire to drive up turnout amongst these groups added to this while both “Guardian Man and Woman” and the Muslim community have seen support for Labour pretty well collapse, the former is unimportant (to put it bluntly) while the latter is highly concentrated in a number of seats where it will find it hard to over come some very large Labour majorities especially with the probability of a low turnout (despite the Iraq War). Interesting moderate voters are still very loyal in general, much of the news of late as been received well by the moderate middle class voters won over in 1997 and 2001 while the Conservatives have failed to win back these voters. So in short Labour’s position is solid and should produce a majority above 50 seats that will allow legislation to overcome the “awkward squad” and a vote share of 38-39%.
Comment by Ben — 30/11/2004 @ 7:07 pm | Edit This
You’ve got to take 10 off the UK Elect figure Labour figure, 1 off the Tories and 1 off the LDs to reflect the Scotish changes.That makes it L348: C 200: L67. The huge variation between the seat projections for such small vote changes is going to be the big characteristic of this election. My simple adjustment- based on how wrong the polls were last time - of 1.5 off Labour and 1% onto the Tories and 0.5% to the LDs makes a big difference.
The reason the pollsters get the LAB-CON split wrong is that large numbers of Tories - at least one in ten - do not admit their allegiance to polling interviewers.
Comment by Mike Smithson — 30/11/2004 @ 7:27 pm | Edit This
Whilst I have alot of sympathy with your position Ben I do feel while a majority of 50 will be acheived easily a vote share of 39% is unlikely. I agree with all your points about your core vote and moderate voters but I think the Guardian voters are perhaps more evenly spread than Muslim voters and are a big loss particularly in the important battleground of London. I feel 39% is unlikely as only a few polls have put Labour that high and the polls do have a tendency to overstate Labour.
Comment by Will — 30/11/2004 @ 7:28 pm | Edit This
They have more than “a tendency to overstate Labour” - this is a chronic condition.
Comment by Mike Smithson — 30/11/2004 @ 7:31 pm | Edit This
LOL spot on Mike!
Comment by Will — 30/11/2004 @ 7:35 pm | Edit This
Will, I think Labour’s position in the polls will improve over the winter when most polls will have Labour in the low forties by February or March, while this will be reduced over the course of the campaign (in April) that will still be the base line from which these calculations can be made which ever way you like to approach it.
Also I would argue that the LDs will get more seats from the Conservatives than Labour, there are 15-20 seats which could go to the LDs from the Conservatives while there are 10 maybe 12 seats which could go to the LDs and generally have far more solid majorities than those held by the Conservatives and threatened by the LD.
Comment by Ben — 30/11/2004 @ 7:47 pm | Edit This
It should be noted that I did get a fair bit of flak back in the summer after Leicester South and Brum HH and in the run up to Hartlepool by saying that by Christmas Labour would be on 38-39% in the polls well we’re pretty much there already, at the time I also said that Labour was looking at a majority of 1-1,500 in Hartlepool while many posters where arguing that the Labour campaign was collapsing, that Wright was a liability and that Dunn would win it, so thus far I’ve got a pretty good record on predicting these things.
Comment by Ben — 30/11/2004 @ 7:51 pm | Edit This
Re. point 10, chavs might be allowed to vote, but they rarely do. I’ve yet to see anyone wearing a burberry (or prison white) baseball cap, spitting on the pavement, and drinking from a bottle of Smirnoff Ice or WKD (in the middle of the day, naturally) outside (or inside) any of the polling stations. If your average chav votes at all, it’s for the BNP.
Comment by Richard — 30/11/2004 @ 8:13 pm | Edit This
But BEN - EVERY POLL FROM EVERY POLLSTER in two out of the past three general elections has overstated Labour and the ‘97 performance wasn’t much better. Why have they suddenly transformed themselves? Where’s the evidence?
Certainly it did not come from the Euro elections where even YouGov had caught the over-stating Labour habit. The local elections which were mostly in the metropolitan boroughs and more naturally Labour territory saw the the party reduced to third place - ten points behind the Tories and behind the LDs.
Even in Hartlepool the pollsters had Labour 33% ahead - the margin was 6%.
Comment by Mike Smithson — 30/11/2004 @ 8:15 pm | Edit This
Mike I think the places where the local elections took place is irrelevant - the percentages given are an extrapolation of what would happen over the whole country, and a problem only arises if you think the trend of Lab/Con/Lib support will be markedly different between the two (election and non-election) areas. If anything this could result in an overestimating of LibDem support considering most people believe them to have been making disproportionate inroads in metropolitan seats etc.
Comment by alex — 30/11/2004 @ 8:22 pm | Edit This
Mike, I broadly agree with your projection method (though it’s worth looking at trying to tune the final adjustments of 14 and 12). But Ben seems to be talking about predicting the GE result, taking into account moves between now and then. Polls are a snapshot, so any kind of number crunching on today’s figures can only give you an “if there were a GE tomorrow…” number, which is exactly what polls are for.
It’s arguable (and I’d argue it) that Labour will put on a few more points between now and the GE, with a potential deal in NI, turning Iraq from a crisis into a drawn-out corrosion, and (most importantly) an electioneering budget which can be fixed with tax hikes next year. I don’t particularly welcome it, but I think Labour are going to be fairly comfortable in May.
I certainly look forward to seeing this method applied to the figures as they change, and how close the final prediction is to the actual result.
Comment by book value — 30/11/2004 @ 8:23 pm | Edit This
book value I think it very unlikely that Gordon Brown will be interested in any give away budgets which might risk the economy - his hopes of becoming Prime Minister are after all dependent on it.
Comment by alex — 30/11/2004 @ 8:26 pm | Edit This
I assume spending cuts are out of the question (because Labour spends money on Families, and we all know how important Families are). Medium term taxes need to go up to pay for them. Is Brown more likely to do that in 2005, or 2006?
Comment by book value — 30/11/2004 @ 8:29 pm | Edit This
His chances of winning the leadership will not be affected by whether he puts taxes up or not. They will be affected if the economy goes belly up.
Comment by alex — 30/11/2004 @ 8:33 pm | Edit This
Presumably he would like the leadership to be of a safe parliamentary majority though!
I don’t think he’s going to give everyone free first class rail travel to Doncaster or anything, but the iron hand won’t tighten till next year. And this is only natural - there can never have been a Chancellor who wasn’t influenced by the political calendar.
Comment by book value — 30/11/2004 @ 8:37 pm | Edit This
BV to point 30 - my article was not a General Election prediction - it was setting out a formula that I will use in the coming five months and will revise as new polls come out. If the bottom two Labour numbers move up, as Ben predicts, then my Labour share moves up too.
The pollsters’ overstatement of Labour goes back a long way. It’s happened at eleven of the 13 elections of the past half century. The exceptions were Feb 74 and the Tory landslide of 1983 which were both odd in their own ways. In 1974 the result was dramatically affected by a pay board report almost on the eve of polling that showed a “mess-up” had been made on the miners’ pay figures. 1983 was the year when the Alliance looked set to oust Labour from 2nd place but the party recovered substantially by polling day.
In the 11 other elections the overstatement of Labour has been the norm. Maybe 05/05/05 will be different but I doubt it
Comment by Mike Smithson — 30/11/2004 @ 8:37 pm | Edit This
Mike, I take your point about the overstatement of Labour in the polls, but as Mike says I’m not attacking your argument I’m just saying that Labour will be in the low forties in most polls by January and February and I agree with BV that Brown will produce a “feel good budget” (economic risks don’t worry voters unless they go wrong, look at the US and it won’t go wrong soon enough to wreck the election for Labour). I never argued that he poll (only one) in Hartlepool merely that Labour will win it solidly (in comparison to the LD wins and nail bitters that many forecast on this site) I was also dismissed by many when I argued before the July by-election that Labour’s poll lead would recover towards the end of the year and I maintained this after the by-elections and was again told by many this would not happen yet it has.
I would imagine that the Polls at the beginning of 2005 will be giving Labour a higher rating than they will get in May but if the range is something like 39-45% (as I would expect) then my prediction will hold out, a poll bounce before the election in reaction to the budget is also likely IMHO.
Comment by Ben — 30/11/2004 @ 8:39 pm | Edit This
Mike - I skip read and thought you were answering Ben’s point 25-26 (about Labour’s movements over time in the polls) rather than 20 (about the overstating issue). Sorry.
Comment by book value — 30/11/2004 @ 8:41 pm | Edit This
Ben - do you expect the bottom two Labour figures - the numbers I am using - will be above 39%?
Comment by Mike Smithson — 30/11/2004 @ 8:43 pm | Edit This
According to Monday’s Times hunt supporters are planning to target 50 marginal seats at the next GE - seats in hunting areas or where MP’s have slim majorities.The aim is to mobilise supporters to work to ensure the return of pro-fox hunting MP’s.Should help the Tories.
Comment by Vino — 30/11/2004 @ 8:46 pm | Edit This
This has been the busiest non-election day ever on the site. We’ve had 2500 unique visitors in 12 hours - so BV all your separate visits only count as one I’m afraid. That figure looks low compared with the 10,000 on November 2nd and the 5000 in 5 hours on September 30 for the Hartlepool by-election but there were elections and a massive amount of betting going on.
Comment by Mike Smithson — 30/11/2004 @ 8:49 pm | Edit This
Well done on another milestone.
Comment by book value — 30/11/2004 @ 8:51 pm | Edit This
I fully accept that the pollsters indicate Labour is on the decline. However in the real polls that happen across the country each and every Thursday - local authority by elections, if you look at the results in the Mets, Labour is picking up votes big time, with a healthy swing in their favour. This at the cost of the Tories!
Comment by Olley — 30/11/2004 @ 8:53 pm | Edit This
Mike, my own view is that if the range for labour is 39-45 then the lowest two are going to be something like 39% and 41% or something along those lines, the boost after the budget (which I expect there to be) might move that up a point or two, but by polling day I expect Labour to get 38 or 39%, and the way the polls seem to be trending would suggest that.
At least that’s my two cents worth.
Comment by Ben — 30/11/2004 @ 9:04 pm | Edit This
Ben - I’ve set out my stall with my formula and will put in whatever the relevant ratings are. Incidentally I’m not advising anybody to bet at the moment on any of the parties. If Labour do move as you suggest then the Tory spread will plummet and there might be value to be had - but certainly there’s no point in betting now.
Comment by Mike Smithson — 30/11/2004 @ 9:13 pm | Edit This
I wasn’t questioning your logic Mike, I was just arguing with a view to how things will go over the next few months, as has happened with past government their experiencing a rallying effect in the polls and will work hard (and are) to make as much of that as possible.
Comment by Ben — 30/11/2004 @ 9:15 pm | Edit This
Olley
I had a look at the last three months´ local government results, but can´t see the dramatic swing to Labour that you talk about. When are where was it?
Comment by John — 30/11/2004 @ 9:17 pm | Edit This
I’d be amazed if the budget give Labour a boost. There ain’t anything to spend and the US (which determines our economy whether we like it or not) is going to hell in a handbasket. It will simply focus media attention on likely post-election tax-rises as every serious commentator will be saying the Golden Rule is going to be broken.
Back on the hunting issue if the hunts come out to oust Labour I revise my forecast to Labour majority 100. Tories could even go down. Does anyone seriously think that conversion canvassing by Otis Ferry is going to turf out Labour MPs? If I were a Tory I would be praying the Countryside Alliance does nothing more than a few deliveries. Any parking ploughs on the motorway network and the talk of Labour targeting Boston etc. might not be as loopy as I think it is.
Comment by Jon — 30/11/2004 @ 9:18 pm | Edit This
My views tend to coincide with Bens(on the GE not political) however where I disagree is his contention that the LD’s will take more seats from the Tories than Labour.I don’t think the LD’s will do as well as their supporters think - they will be fighting on two battle fronts.
Every constituency will be different depending on how many “others” stand and take vital votes away from the big 3.
Comment by Vino — 30/11/2004 @ 9:26 pm | Edit This
With you on the budget, but I can’t move from the position that the Polls are simply not reflective of by elections week in week out. Such is the sadness of my life that I do study these and the trends I see are not reflected in the polls, which of course have a significant range. Labours vote is holding up and on the up (in the Mets), however the translation at the General Election is the big one. Interestingly the Mets average in the proceeding weeks before the last two generals reflected well when measured against the seats taken - so Labours Mets seats, in percentage terms reflected their parliamentary percentages. There is no range on these indicators and as such I feel a more solid measure. I don’t know - but given the physical location of pollsters and those polled, I imagine most polls are taken in Mets.
Comment by Olley — 30/11/2004 @ 9:27 pm | Edit This
I don’t think the point is necessarily that they will be campaigning on Fox Hunting as The election issue. Just they will be giving valuable manpower in the campaign.
Comment by alex — 30/11/2004 @ 9:29 pm | Edit This
What was your prediction Jon? As for the Hunters I think the idea was that they help pro-hunting MPs (Tories, I doubt they would help pro-hunt Labour and LD MPs) through leafleting, canvassing etc…
That said I doubt, on past evidence that the Hunters will stay sufficiently disciplined, getting up early every morning for a month and canvassing for hours, which can often seem quite dull, more than likely they will go and do something stupid “go slows”, horse carcases, attacking the police and the shooting of dogs in public will no doubt be their idea of winning public support… Thing is I’m indifferent to hunting, ideally I think it should stay as it is, but after the Country Side Alliances attempt to storm the houses of parliament (I was in London at the time) and their actions since, I now just want it to get banned, irrational? probably, but despite being a labour member I always supported them but over the last few weeks and months I turned decidedly against them… that’s just me though any body else had a similar experience?
Comment by Ben — 30/11/2004 @ 9:32 pm | Edit This
Jon, it really doesn’t matter if there is nothing to spend Brown more than anything needs a solid and convincing Labour win and a majority to go with it for himself if nothing else, as a result Brown will take a lot of risks with the budget knowing that he can crack down on them after the election with 4-5 years left to right any mistakes, and any failures won’t become apparent during the campaign.
Comment by Ben — 30/11/2004 @ 9:39 pm | Edit This
i’m with Ben, I don’t like the idea of banning anything, except in specific circumstances, so these hunters as far as I am concerned should be allowed to get on with it. Which I suspect they will, who can tell the differnce between a drag hunt, giving the hounds a run out or take your pick of sound reasons to be out all dressed in red.
But they have let the side down in their protests, no way you try and punch the lights out of a copper cos you don’t like what a buncj of MP’s are doing, dead animals on the streets. These guys have lost it and with that the nation too.
Comment by Olley — 30/11/2004 @ 9:56 pm | Edit This
FWIW my prediction is:
Lab 35-38% 340-360
Con 30-33& 190-210
LD 22-25% 60-80
The “Smithson” formula seems preety fair to me - though being slighty more cautious I would do the + & - on the average poll ratings for each party, but the general principle looks pretty sound historically.
Also, I agree with Ben (surely some mistake?) Labour’s vote will go up before the campaign & down during it. Where I’m sceptical about how much it will go up by - I would be surprised if the average poll rating goes above 40% before the budget and as I say I expect them to end up at around 35-38% in the end.
Comment by Bullseye — 30/11/2004 @ 10:25 pm | Edit This
Summing up, so far the range of predictions is
Lab 339-355
Con 195-214
LD 60-70
- Ben, what are your predictions for Cons/LibDems + Mike, what is your prediction for the result on the day (not based on current polls)
Just been called away, I’ll do mine in a moment!
Comment by villan — 30/11/2004 @ 11:13 pm | Edit This
Villian, do you mean which seats do i think will change hands between the Cons the LDs or how they will fair overall?
Comment by Ben — 30/11/2004 @ 11:17 pm | Edit This
The problem with any predication is what of UKIP? The party has it within its power (if it where the elect Kilroy as its leader and get some of the attention it received at the beginning of the year) to take a chunk out of the Conservative vote (as well as receiving a small degree of support from normally labour and ld voters and a large number of people who do not normally vote), Last I heard Kilroy could be set actually become leader which would probably mean UKIP getting something like 4-5% of the vote. But for the sake of this I’ll ignore UKIP and say a national vote of 2-3% without Kilroy.
So with Polls in early April (after Brown’s feel good budget ) putting the Parties at (as an average)…
Labour: 43%
Conservative: 30%
Liberal Democrats: 19%
… assuming that the lowest two polls average out at something like…
Labour: 40%
Conservatives 32%
Liberal Democrats: 20.5%
…so then you have a final result of…
Labour: 38.5%
Conservatives: 33%
Liberal Democrats: 21.5%
Translating that into seats is more difficult, considering how very fragmented this election looks like being, I mean it’s possible that a 7,000 strong Labour majority in Islington South and Finsbury could disappear while Labour majorities in Leicestershire north west and other majorities could well hold strong. But anyway using the method used by Mike that gives you…
Labour: 362 (38.5%)
Conservatives: 187 (33%)
Liberal Democrats: 68 (21.5%)
…however there is a problem with these alterations, suggested by Mike, firstly it doesn’t take into account the fact that the LDs will win a fair number of seats from the Conservatives as well as Labour, I would argue that they will win more seats from the Conservatives than Labour and that they will “only” win eight seats from Labour and so can then expect 10-15 seats (lets say 12 for the sake of the forecast) to be gained from the Conservatives so after a further alteration…
Labour: 366 (38.5%)
Conservatives: 175 (33%)
Liberal Democrats: 76 (21.5%)
…does Baxter take into account the by-election wins, as I would argue that it’s very possible that Leicester South will go back to Labour, with Brent I’m not at all sure, I don’t know the seat and Teather has been working very hard so that could well stay LD (depends on turnout).
As I always say, its just my take with an eye to what I think the trends are which are emerging from the polls that have been conducted over the last few months, and to me it seems like a pretty run of the mill rally for the governing party in the run up to a general election.
Comment by Ben — 1/12/2004 @ 12:22 am | Edit This
Yes, Ben, thats what I meant.
Just about any result from a Labour landslide to a hung parliament is possible, but for the sake of saying something, I’ll predict
Lab 36
Con 32
LD 22
UKIP 6
Labour’s nightmare scenario would be for one quarter of their 2001 supporters to stay at home/vote for other parties. In practice they are winning some of those back - lets say half the mid-term doubters will have returned by the election, so I’ve given them 36%. Labour have all the advantages of incumbency and can direct public spending where it will make a difference. But theres always the risk of “events”.
Mikes “Conference rule” on the LibDems suggests 23%. I’ve marked them down one because of the existence of Respect, etc. I live in an area (Somerset) where the LibDems are on the defensive after the Ashdown years but obvously they are doing well nationally.
As for the Conservatives, the right-wing vote has probably increased back up to 36%/37%, so, as you say, it all depends on how many the Conservatives lose to UKIP. UKIP have enough friends in the media to get enough publicity to poll reasonably but without Kilroy they may not reach beyond 6%.
The Baxter seats tally from those figures would be
Lab 373
Con 184
LD 59
My guess is the Conservatives will do quite a bit better in seats. They were very poor at targetting last time so the Vote Vault should make a worthwhile difference. There’s also tactical unwind but I’m wary of double counting. So I’ll say 30 extra net gains from Labour. But UKIP is a real confusing factor. They may not win some of their obvious target seats on the south coast.
The LibDems will win, say, 12 and lose 5 against the Tories, but I really cant see them making more than 5 gains against Labour - places like Bham Yardley or Rochdale. They are just too far behind in most of the other seats that have been mentioned to win at the first go. Baxter says 4 LD gains from Con and 2 from Lab on my vote split; I’ll increase that to 7 (net) and 5. I.e., I’m predicting the LibDems will increase their share of the vote quite a lot but not actually win many extra seats because their new supporters dont live in the right places.
All of which voodoo gives me
Lab 340
Con 211
LD 65
But really its anyones guess. If UKIP (and the huntsmen) do their worst it could be a Labour landslide. If events go wrong for the Government it could be a hung parliament.
Comment by villan — 1/12/2004 @ 3:05 am | Edit This
Villan - Baxter is purely mathematical and freezes the world as it was on June 8 2001. He computes a poll of polls then applies the changes on a uniform national swing basis to what happened then.
His approach is fine if the polls do not exaggerate Labour and we all perform in uniform across the nation. The world is more complicated.
Comment by Mike Smithson — 1/12/2004 @ 7:58 am | Edit This
Ben
Your view on the hunting issue is mine, I personally always found it distasteful and unnecessary but couldn’t really say that would be enough to ban it. However since the more ludicrous threats and protests which remind me very much of the miners’ strike I have been a banner.
Secondly I think your view on the economy is wishful thinking. Brown would not dare go beserk in the budget because of what the media will say, amd more importantly what the City will do. Even the Labour supporting press will be quite happy to carry sustained criticism of him from economic experts every day during the campaign, threats of interest rate rises, tax rises after the election etc. People are not completely stupid.
I think Brown takes his reputation as the prudent Chancellor extremely seriously - no way will he throw it away given its importance to Labour. Are you really saying he wants to take over in 2006 and immediately have a recession (very likely anyway)?
I’ve thought for a while this next election is 1992 all over again. The Government gets back in but within a year is derailed and never recovers… and Europe has everything to do with it again.
On hunting - from the letters to the local press here it seems the provisional CA want to go round in urban seats trying to persuade people they should vote for a pro-hunter and park a few tractors on the M5. This I believe will be terminally embarrassing for the Tories down here. If it happens, which I doubt.
Ben… my forecast was slightly provocative but is somewhere higher up on the post. The risks to me are
Hunters… bad for Tories, good for everyone else.
Economy/budget bad for Labour, good for everyone else.
So though my forecast for LDs is very low, there are a variety of scenarios where there could be plenty of upside. I also expect us to come a good second in a hell of a lot of places setting it up for 2010.
Comment by Jon — 1/12/2004 @ 9:24 am | Edit This
Turnout will be a major factor in this election (no sh*t Sherlock!!). I find it difficult to draw conclusions from Local Authority results because the turnout is so low and the incentive to turn out in a GE is so much higher.
The key thing is who the “stay at homes” will influence. FWIW, I reckon there are about 25% of the country who are viscerally anti-Blair, and eight years down the line will be motivated to turn him out. If, as others have pointed out, his own soft support stays at home in protest (or votes LD, Respect, Green whatever), then the Tory vote could hold and they would then make sginficant advances.
FWIW my view is that Labour’s best bet is for a run of polls showing them behind the Tories - this could be used to “scare” their core vote, and any potential switchers, back to the fold.
Comment by Steve T — 1/12/2004 @ 10:02 am | Edit This
It doesn’t feel to me as if anything particularly dramatic is going to happen.
For Mike’s prediction (Labour losing 105 seats it has held for at least 2 elections) to come true would need a huge national swing, no party can effectively target and win that number of seats. This does happen occasionally, in 1997 Labour won seats in which its campaign was half-hearted and it local organisation very poor. But it doesn’t feel to me as if it will happen this time.
The second point I would make is that if the Tories lose seats to the Liberals at the election they are in serious trouble. The Tories desperately need to win back what should be safe Tory seats form the Liberals and close down that second front.
On that basis although there could be some trading I would expect the Tories to win 5-10 seats from the Liberals overall.
So miy precdiction would be:
Labour 365-375
Tories 205-215
Liberals 50-60
Comment by pregethwr — 1/12/2004 @ 10:33 am | Edit This
My own prediction, based on nothing scientific at all. Starting with vote shares, Labour will suffer and Tories will gain a bit. Lib Dems will improve on 2001, but won’t quite reach their current poll numbers. Others (UKIP, Respect) will gain a point or two.
So that’s Labour 36%, Tories 34%, Lib Dems 22%.
Now seat numbers – what is the departure from Baxter? I don’t think Lib Dems will be big net gainers, given the couple of sure-fire losses in Shrewsbury and Leicester South, and a few other surprise losses where MPs are standing down or whatever. Targeting must produce diminishing returns over a number of elections, and is limited by resources: and I have seen no hard evidence (party membership numbers?) to suggest a lot more activists in 2005 than 2001. The Tories, on the other hand, will be pretty new to targeting so may do a little better.
So that gives something like Labour 352, Tories 206, Lib Dems 60. (Which backs up Mike’s calls on this site that there’s no current value in the spreads.)
Comment by Michael — 1/12/2004 @ 10:38 am | Edit This
Perhaps someone could do the analysis, but there are a fair number of Tory/LD marginals on both sides. All sorts of factors (UKIP, CA, Lab tactical voting) come into play in addition to targetting. On the down side for the LDs the high number of seats they won last time means there’s more to defend. Given their limited resources there’s bound to be some losses (5-7), and I can only just see them offsetting this with gains.
All this probably explains their focus on Northern seats, where a fall in turnout, targetted anti-Labour tactical voting and Muslim/GMW switchers could ee a few surprises. 6-8 seats only, though. Which backs up Michael’s 60
Comment by Steve T — 1/12/2004 @ 10:46 am | Edit This
All very interesting. My own views:-
Local by-elections. These certainly show a movement to Labour (at the expense of the Lib Dems) compared to the Summer. The Conservative vote share remains much the same as it was in the Summer (around 38%). However, Labour are still some distance behind the Conservatives. Overall, since the end of the party conferences, the Conservatives have gained 9 seats, and lost 5 seats in local by-elections.
Opinion polls - I think there is virtually unanimous agreement here that they overstate Labour support. However, the trend has clearly been in Labour’s favour since the end of the Summer. It’s quite possible Labour’s vote share will move upwards until the Spring, but I would be surprised if their average share rose above 40%. I would expect the Labour vote to be below their opinion poll rating at the start of the campaign.
Iraq - that has cost Labour the support of 2-3% of the voters for good. Almost no one (apart from Stephen Pollard) has switched to Labour as a result of the Iraq war. This will result in some wild swings to the Lib Dems (and in the East End Respect), but is probably not significant in more than about twenty seats.
Minor parties. These will get their best vote share for years. Because they will only campaign seriously in a relatively small number of seats, it’s hard to predict what impact they will have. UKIP will, on balance, harm the Tories (but perhaps not in the South West); the Greens will on balance, harm Labour and Lib Dems; Respect will harm Labour, and the BNP will harm all the parties. They’ll also motivate previous non-voters.
The Economy. Plainly, that is going downhill, but things will still be good enough in May for Labour to play this card. Declining house prices will hurt Labour’s prospects in suburban North London.
Hunting. If the CA stick to working on behalf of Conservative candidates, then this must assist the Conservatives. If they conduct stupid stunts it won’t. I expect the issue will help the Tories hold some West country seats like Totnes, and West Dorset, as well as finishing Labour’s already slim chances of holding places like South Dorset and Preseli Pembrokeshire.
Targetting. In every round of local elections since the last election, the Conservatives have gained more seats than one would expect on the back of uniform national swing. At the same time, they have seen no increase in their vote in places like Liverpool, Newcastle and Manchester. This suggest that the Conservative vote is becoming more efficiently distributed from the point of view of winning seats. I think they will outperform in their target seats.
Overall, I think I’ll stick to my original prediction. I expect a small Labour lead over the Tories in terms of votes, but a reasonably comfortable Labour majority.
Comment by Sean Fear — 1/12/2004 @ 10:52 am | Edit This
Interesting that everyone pitches the LDs lower than the current market. Why? I don’t know but these spreadbetting sites are dominated by City money which is mostly Tory - maybe there is a sense the Conservatives are slipping away in SE England where they are fighting LDs. Partly also of course if you sell the LDs most you can make is perhaps 30 whereas potentially you could lose 100
Comment by Jon — 1/12/2004 @ 10:53 am | Edit This
Top 20 LD/Con Marginals:
REF SEATNAME MAJ01
136 Cheadle .1
629 Weston-Super-Mare .7
428 Norfolk North .9
196 Dorset Mid & North Poole .9
285 Guildford 1.1
524 Somerton & Frome 1.3
86 Brecon & Radnorshire 2.0
314 Hereford 2.2
385 Ludlow 3.8
419 Newbury 4.8
485 Romsey 4.9
573 Teignbridge 5.1
189 Devon North 6.1
223 Eastleigh 6.4
530 Southport 7.3
656 Yeovil 8.2
481 Richmond Park 10.1
161 Cornwall South East 10.4
563 Sutton & Cheam 10.8
131 Carshalton & Wallington 11.2
138 Cheltenham 12.6
Comment by Steve T — 1/12/2004 @ 10:56 am | Edit This
Top 20 Con/LD marginals:
REF SEATNAME MAJ01
571 Taunton .4
448 Orpington .5
561 Surrey South West 1.7
199 Dorset West 2.9
290 Haltemprice & Howden 4.3
339 Isle of Wight 4.5
222 Eastbourne 4.8
620 Wells 5.4
628 Westmorland & Lonsdale 6.6
584 Totnes 7.3
631 Wiltshire North 7.3
389 Maidenhead 7.6
197 Dorset North 7.9
416 New Forest East 9.1
79 Bournemouth East 9.6
93 Bridgwater 10.4
626 Westbury 10.5
496 Ryedale 11.1
579 Tiverton & Honiton 11.3
299 Harborough 11.3
Comment by Steve T — 1/12/2004 @ 10:58 am | Edit This
Absolute insanity. If you seriously think Mike, that the Tories are going to gain 70 seats I suggest you move into another area of “expertise”. This is an excellent website, but I am becoming increasingly frustrated at the sheer refusal to ignore, reject and plain disagree with 7, 8, 9 and 11 point opinion poll leads. There is far too much over-intellectualising simply to appear clever. It’s like saying that Chelsea are actually rubbish.
Comment by Dougie — 1/12/2004 @ 10:58 am | Edit This
Top 20 Con/LD marginals:
REF SEATNAME MAJ01
571 Taunton .4
448 Orpington .5
561 Surrey South West 1.7
199 Dorset West 2.9
290 Haltemprice & Howden 4.3
339 Isle of Wight 4.5
222 Eastbourne 4.8
620 Wells 5.4
628 Westmorland & Lonsdale 6.6
584 Totnes 7.3
631 Wiltshire North 7.3
389 Maidenhead 7.6
197 Dorset North 7.9
416 New Forest East 9.1
79 Bournemouth East 9.6
93 Bridgwater 10.4
626 Westbury 10.5
496 Ryedale 11.1
579 Tiverton & Honiton 11.3
299 Harborough 11.3
Comment by Steve T — 1/12/2004 @ 10:59 am | Edit This
Sorry for posting twice.
The story this tells is that the LD marginals are slightly more marginal than the Tory ones. Not good news for the LDs if the Tories are only just getting their targetting act together. however, OTOH these seats have been like this since ‘92 at least so I find it hard to believe that the battle is only just being joined. What’s the evidence for the relative strength of party organisations in these seats?
Comment by Steve T — 1/12/2004 @ 11:02 am | Edit This
Further bad news for the LDs when you look a the size of the majorities in the Lab/LD top 20:
REF SEATNAME MAJ01
123 Cardiff Central 1.9
445 Oldham East & Saddleworth 6.0
100 Bristol West 8.0
62 Birmingham, Yardley 8.6
4 Aberdeen South 11.9
482 Rochdale 14.3
231 Edinburgh South 14.8
116 Cambridge 20.0
69 Blaydon 21.1
227 Edinburgh Central 23.7
325 Hornsey & Wood Green 24.1
341 Islington South & Finsbury 25.8
449 Oxford East 26.0
229 Edinburgh North & Leith 26.5
500 St Helens South 26.6
269 Glasgow Kelvin 27.1
549 Strathkelvin and Bearsden 28.2
214 Durham, City of 32.4
396 Manchester, Withington 32.9
421 Newcastle upon Tyne Central 33.3
Comment by Steve T — 1/12/2004 @ 11:05 am | Edit This
Here’s my Tory/LD Target board:
SEATNAME MAJ01 SEATNAME MAJ01 Con Ben:
Taunton .4 Cheadle .1 0.33
Orpington .5 Weston-Super-Mare .7 -0.20
Surrey South West 1.7 Norfolk North .9 0.88
Dorset West 2.9 Dorset Mid & North Poole .9 1.97
Haltemprice & Howden 4.3 Guildford 1.1 3.21
Isle of Wight 4.5 Somerton & Frome 1.3 3.18
Eastbourne 4.8 Brecon & Radnorshire 2.0 2.81
Wells 5.4 Hereford 2.2 3.28
Westmorland & Lonsdale 6.6 Ludlow 3.8 2.79
Totnes 7.3 Newbury 4.8 2.55
Wiltshire North 7.3 Romsey 4.9 2.43
Maidenhead 7.6 Teignbridge 5.1 2.50
Dorset North 7.9 Devon North 6.1 1.88
New Forest East 9.1 Eastleigh 6.4 2.65
Bournemouth East 9.6 Southport 7.3 2.29
Bridgwater 10.4 Yeovil 8.2 2.26
Westbury 10.5 Richmond Park 10.1 0.36
Ryedale 11.1 Cornwall South East 10.4 0.72
Tiverton & Honiton 11.3 Sutton & Cheam 10.8 0.43
Harborough 11.3 Carshalton & Wallington 11.2 0.12
Worcestershire West 12.0 Cheltenham 12.6 -0.57
Norfolk South 12.3 Colchester 12.7 -0.37
Folkestone & Hythe 12.9 Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine 12.7 0.17
Wokingham 13.7 Torbay 14.1 -0.43
Aldershot 14.5 Twickenham 15.3 -0.84
Sussex Mid 15.1 Portsmouth South 15.5 -0.49
Woking 15.8 Truro & St Austell 16.0 -0.28
Salisbury 16.5 Winchester 16.3 0.26
Devon East 17.1 Northavon 17.7 -0.58
Cambridgeshire South East 17.3 Oxford West & Abingdon 17.8 -0.48
Cambridgeshire South 17.4 Cornwall North 18.2 -0.83
Hampshire East 17.7 St Ives 20.4 -2.73
Henley 19.0 Harrogate & Knaresborough 21.0 -1.92
Solihull 19.5 Bath 21.4 -1.88
Aylesbury 20.4 Lewes 21.4 -0.98
Worthing West 20.9 Montgomeryshire 21.5 -0.59
Stratford on Avon 21.5 Hazel Grove 21.9 -0.43
Mole Valley 21.6 Gordon 22.5 -0.94
Leominster 22.2 Berwick-upon-Tweed 23.3 -1.11
Ribble Valley 22.9 Sheffield, Hallam 24.4 -1.58
Chichester 22.9 Roxburgh & Berwickshire 26.1 -3.15
Bexhill & Battle 23.5 Fife North East 28.1 -4.61
Surrey Heath 24.0 Kingston & Surbiton 31.9 -7.94
Saffron Walden 24.0
Tunbridge Wells 24.2
Huntingdon 26.1
Cotswold 26.1
Wealden 26.1
Chesham & Amersham 26.2
Skipton & Ripon 26.3
Horsham 26.9
Christchurch 27.3
Surrey East 28.1
Arundel & South Downs 29.9
New Forest West 29.9
Hampshire North East 30.2
Penrith & The Border 33.2
Comment by Steve T — 1/12/2004 @ 11:17 am | Edit This
Just shows how things have changed when the Tories taking Bath is now about as likely as the LDs taking Henley …
Comment by Steve T — 1/12/2004 @ 11:19 am | Edit This
Dougie – a fair point of view. But let’s see your own predictions! Presumably if Labour are Chelsea it’s another 150+ majority, is it?
Comment by Michael — 1/12/2004 @ 11:21 am | Edit This
If Labour are Chelsea I guess Putin will win. But seriously for Tories to gain 70 requires them to just about take Stafford (say). And is that a big way out call? Obviously not.
Comment by Jon — 1/12/2004 @ 11:25 am | Edit This
All the Tories’ top 70 target seats have majorities of less than 10%:
SEATNAME MAJ01
Cheadle .1
Perth .1
Dorset South .3
Braintree .7
Weston-Super-Mare .7
Norfolk North .9
Monmouth .9
Dorset Mid & North Poole .9
Lancaster & Wyre .9
Guildford 1.1
Kettering 1.2
Somerton & Frome 1.3
Northampton South 1.7
Brecon & Radnorshire 2.0
Hereford 2.2
Welwyn Hatfield 2.8
Shipley 3.1
Clwyd West 3.2
Bexleyheath & Crayford 3.6
Ludlow 3.8
Milton Keynes North East 3.9
Hornchurch 4.2
Selby 4.3
Edinburgh Pentlands 4.5
Hammersmith & Fulham 4.5
Thanet South 4.5
Forest of Dean 4.6
Wellingborough 4.6
Newbury 4.8
Romsey 4.9
Teignbridge 5.1
Ilford North 5.3
Rugby & Kenilworth 5.3
Gillingham 5.4
Harwich 5.4
Enfield North 6.0
Devon North 6.1
Eastleigh 6.4
Calder Valley 6.5
Ayr 6.6
Redditch 6.7
Peterborough 7.2
Shrewsbury & Atcham 7.2
Southport 7.3
Dartford 7.4
Scarborough & Whitby 7.5
Hove 7.6
Preseli Pembrokeshire 8.0
Gloucester 8.0
Putney 8.1
Hemel Hempstead 8.2
Yeovil 8.2
Ribble South 8.2
Finchley & Golders Green 8.5
Tayside North 8.5
Wolverhampton South West 8.5
Wrekin, The 8.6
Croydon Central 8.7
Elmet 9.1
Wimbledon 9.1
Stroud 9.1
Keighley 9.2
Sittingbourne & Sheppey 9.3
High Peak 9.3
Stourbridge 9.5
Brigg & Goole 9.6
Falmouth & Camborne 9.7
Medway 9.8
Colne Valley 9.9
Wirral West 10.0