How the pollsters dealt with their final polls
May 11th, 2005
-
ICM’s raw data had Labour nearly 20% ahead
An extraordinary insight into the challenge that pollsters have in finding representative samples is revealed in the detailed data for the final surveys which is just being made available.
We all know now that in terms of the popular vote in Great Britain Labour beat the Conservatives by 36.2% to 33.2% - or about eleven Labour voters for each ten Conservative ones. But base data for the final surveys ICM and Populus showed huge Labour leads which were simply not borne out by what happened.
-
If the ICM and Populus polls had not been adjusted for past vote recall they would have shown a landslide much bigger than 1997
The ICM sample produced LAB 335 CON 193 LD 180 of people saying they were voting for the respective parties. Populus managed a slightly less skewed raw response of LAB 437: CON 292: LD 218.
When they asked how respondents had voted four years earlier both pollsters found LAB:CON ratios of between 2:1 and 5:2 which underlined how unrepresentative their samples were.
-
It is here that we are totally reliant on the skill and expertise of the pollsters to process the information so that we have meaningful figures.
Thus the survey data was adjusted, amongst other factors, to reflect the past vote recall – but not fully. The pollsters assume here that more people are likely to say they votes last time than actually did so they give a greater weighting to Labour and a reduced weighting to Tories. If they had simply weighted on the 2001 result then they would have overstated the Tory position.
In the end the headline figures published by both pollsters had Labour leads of 6% - twice what actually happened but pretty good in view of the raw data on which it was based.
In a discussion on UK Polling Report the head of Populus, Andrew Cooper, has spoken of the particular difficulties of carrying out surveys during bank holiday weekends. Could it be that Conservatives are much less likely to be at home on public holidays than Labour supporters?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
not sure about your seat figuires for Populous Mike - they add up to 800 or so seats…
900 or so in fact!
They’re respondents, not seats
Its people not seats
re 1-4. I’ve put a phrase of explanation is so that it is clear to everybody that these were respondents and not Commons seats.
Mike Ld’s 180 are you sure? Did you mean eighty?
P 6. No. ICM’s raw data had 180 LD responses only 13 below the Tories.
Even the Torygraph wants PR for Westminster this morning. As the LDs have been out of govt for 80 years, and advocating PR for about half the time, they’ll have worked out which is the most suitable system for Parliament.
Can one of PB.com’s LD activists post the reccommended system of PR, please?
Two interesting opinion pieces in the Guardian today:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1481143,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1480952,00.html
Trackback:
Proportional Representation - is it creeping closer?
http://scottish-independence.blogspot.com/2005/05/proportional-representation-is-it.html
Yes David. We favour STV. Each constituency would elect about 6 MPs (obviously they would be much bigger).
Voters would rank the candidate in the order they prefer and on getting 1/7 of the share a candidate would be elected and transfer and surplus votes proportionately to their next preference and so on.
That way everyone’s vote counts, the link with constituencies is preserved, there is no targeting or marginals, no tactical voting against parties, and a reasonable degree of proportionality.
Parties unable to get more than about 10% in such a constituency would probably still get no seats but their second preferences would count for something.
8 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=IED5UKDTW4CVRQFIQMFCM5OAVCBQYJVC?xml=/opinion/2005/05/11/do1101.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/05/11/ixopinion.html
The Indy has begun a campaign to get PR onto the agenda also. Perhaps Nick Palmer (MP) would comment on whether their’s been much noise in Westminster about it, and if he’s likely to join?
Having lived in Ireland for a while, I got some insight into Single Transferable Vote (which, I think, is the system proposed by the Electoral Reform Society and favoured by the Lib Dems). It’s not fully proportional but it is much more proportional than First Past The Post and couples the advantages of a constituency link with a range of representatives (in a five seat constituency, you might get - as a random example - a “New” Labour MP, an “Old” Labour one, a Tory, a Lib Dem and one elected on a local issue). It’s likely to lead to hung parliaments but that might better reflect what the British people want - or is it just me that wants to see a plague on all their houses? Main disadvantage: counts last forever(!!!) and I vaguely remember that the umpteenth count in one Dublin five seater was so tight that a gaggle of QCs were rush over by taxi to argue over the spoilt papers on the spot.
David @8. Just looked at the Telegraph. Ferdinand Mount, a columnist, was arguing for PR, but I didn’t see any such support in any editorial.
11 - Jon, does each party run 6 candidates in a 6-member constituency? If so, and the proportion of seats that the party receives under its % entitlement were, say 3, would the 3 who received the most individual votes get elected?
15 - I think you’ve misunderstood the system Tabman. Every candidate stands in their own right.
16 - probably … I’ll have to go and read it up [hangs head in shame]
The voter ranks every candidate 1 to … x. Then you add up the “1s”. Anyone with 1/7 of the total votes gets elected. You then eliminate all the votes for anyone who’s been elected and add their voters second preferences to the other candidates. And repeat the process.
Re STV. One of the issues is the size of constituencies (number of seats) - the bigger, the more proportional, of course. But there would be a lot of pressure to use counties (and in London the existing GLA constituencies which are the right size). So it might very from 3 to 7!
Tabman, the answer is probably no. Remember that there is an inevitable vote wastage at each transfer. So in a six-member seat it is unlikely that Labour and Tory would put up more than four candidates, the Lib Dems more than three, or any other party more than one.
I don’t know how (or even whether) deposits are dealt with in Ireland. An alternative to a %age of the vote might be candidates eliminated on the first redistribution.
I will be interested (also because I have family there) on the referendum on STV which is taking place in British Columbia soon together with their Provincial election. BC has a history of big swings between left and right-wing parties: if they do go for STV there expect the Greens to become a significant political force, & even within ten years the main left party. Tasmania has had STV for its State parliament (? assembly) for ages.
I might squeeze in another visit, but I’m off to la France profonde for a week, Ryanair permitting - see you when I get back!
8. No trhey don’t that is a Commentary piece by Ferdinand Mount who has long advocated in the Sunday Times etc, one Commentaor does not a newspaper make.
11 I’m not surprised you see it as a way to lock the Consevatives out of power for ever. Which is the whole reason Blai was intersted until he realised he didn’t need you. Look at the most passionate advocates Polly Toynbee, the Lib Dem Grassroots, Guardian and INdpenent, and Mirror et all. Would they advocate anything that helped the Conservatives.
Permament Lib-Lab Coalition with French styly State. Ms Toynbee’s dream. Route to weak easily bullied Government Trade Unnion’s dream.
I think PR should be introduced but for an elected House of Lords. I believe if people felt that at least in one chamber there vote counted, they would not mind the dominance of governments in the commons so much. I also minded to think PR should be introduced in local government as well. It would end the massive fiefdoms that labour in particular has built up accross the north and give the Tories a way back into cities like Liverpool and Manchester. This is not to say that every council would be a coalition. It is easy to imagine that somewhere like Wandsworth would still be a Tory council under PR.
As for the Commons, I still think it is a massive strength of the British system, that you have governments empowered to make the tough decisions over issues such as pensions, that are never dealt with in continental Europe due to the problems of coalition.
Interesting reported comment by Paddy Ashdown about PR in the Toynbee article (above)
David - the government would be much harder to bully as would not depend on a minority of swing voters in a minority of seats.
I think we are suggesting 4-7 member constituencies with most being at the larger end but obviously the Highlands and other super-rural bits would need 4.
The only drawback I can see is the nightmare counts - but then I support electronic voting (if Brazil can do it we surely can) anyway.
Re 19 - deposits in STV The Irish system (quickly checked on the Irish Govt website) is that a deposit (formerly IR£300, so about £260 Stg) is payable and refunded if a candidate is elected or gets a quarter of the quota (including transfers) - ie 1/24 in a five seater, 1/20 in a four seater and 1/16 in a three seater.
Useless Fact #754. STV - which I think is only used in english speaking world - sometimes does result in absolute Parliamentary majorities. Malta has a solid two party system under STV and in two lections IIRC in the 1980s, the Labour party actually won a majority despite polling fewer votes because of the composition of the multi member districts. A major political crisis ensued that was finally resolved when the constitution was change to grant an extra seat(s) to the party that won the most votes.
Not a lot of people know that….please don’t go a-googling and tell me I’m wrong!
Just found a seriously pretty map: http://www.theherald.co.uk/uimages/0705electionmap.pdf
And now I really must go catch the Stansted Express!
Behave yourselves while I’m gone
You’ve got to ask if there’s any point to “maintaining a constituency link” when the constituencies are 5 or 6 times the size of the current ones. Most people don’t even know who their MP is at the moment! And how would the division of constituency responsibilities work - do they each get assigned an area?
Leaving the subject of PR and STV for the moment and getting back to the subject topic . This is something I queried several days ago when I asked if the closeness of the opinion polls to the actual result were the result of accurate polling sampling or accurate perhaps fortuitous adjustment of polling data . The figures you give are far worse than I had imagined they would be and in my mind there is a big chance that because they got it right with their adjustments this time , they woill do the same next time . The circumstances may then be very different and they could well end up not just with egg on their faces but chickens as well .
Do we know whether the BBC/ITN exit poll had similar adjustments or was that actual figures as it presumably ought yo be given it was a survey of what had happened not a forecast of what voters were going to do .
28 - I don’t know but i suspect the exit poll shouldn’t have had the same problems of finding a representative sample (and I doubt Bob Worcester would have let them include things like past vote recall! - it would be interesting to know if they asked the question anyway).
Sorry for typo - should read - will not do the same next time
Alex - what constituency responsibilities? Constituents would presumably raise their issues with the candidate(s) they had voted for unlike now where those who hate their MP feel disenfranchised.
Dear Mike Smithson et al,
This prove that there is no such thing as a random sample!
Pollsters should admit just how awful their samples really are, and then there could be a genuine debate about the methodologies; the excuse about bank holidays can to a lesser extent be applied to evenings – some people are more likely to be out than others. It all seems a mess.
I particularly love Andrew Cooper’s earlier invention of “Bashful Blairites”! How on earth on the basis of these figures could such a wacky concept have ever entered his mind?
I think they make it up as they go along. The whole industry is at risk.
31 - Are you just guessing that that happens or do you have evidence?
Presumably you are envisaging the end of constituency surgeries?
11. Surely it is up to the Boundary Commission to decide how many seats are in any individual constituency under STV. The norm is between 3 and 6 depending on local circumstances.
Alex - yes though it seems pretty obvious. No it wouldn’t mean the end of surgeries - why should it? Same things apply really the people who think you are the best bet to help them will come. Kind of introduces some element of market forces into it doesn’t it - the people who do the best job for their constituents will presumably get the most votes next time.
Given the government’s complete lack of mandate especially in England is anyone else expecting the House of Lords to be more bolshie, especially with English only issues?
Given the remarkable record we have of gerrymandering boundaries for PR elections in this country (compare the North East to the South East for example) I wouldn’t trust the commission as far as I could throw them.
19. In a six-seater constituency it would be unlikely that both the Tories and Labour would put up 4 candidates; it is very unlikely that these two parties would take all 6 seats between them, and as such having 4 candidates each would be an example of bad vote management. If one of the parties had hopes to take 3 of the seats, then they would probably put up 4 candidates, but the other would probably put up 3. Vote management is a very important part of STV - getting a good spread of first preferences across the constituency, while trying to ensure that one of your candidates doesn’t dominate too much and attract too many first preferences compared to the others, as there is wastage and it will not all transfer down to the other candidates of the same party. One thing that has to be said for STV is that it creates some amazing intra-party squabbles!
The french have an interesting system. If a candidate scores more than 50% they are in and election over. If not, then you remove some candidates and re run it untill you do have one candidate with over 51% of the vote. I am not sure it is a good idea though.
It is crazy to think STV is going to happen. If Tories or Labour ever conceded PR in a hung Parliament, it would be on a top-up basis (probably regional) as in Scotland and Wales. I have my doubts over STV anyway as the seats would have very large populations (it is more suitable for little countries like Ireland) but can see the counter arguments. But the issue is academic.
27 & 33. Not at all Alex: it doesn’t mean the end of constituency surgeries. The point is that you have between 3 and 6 MPs who are your MPs. They all hold constituency surgeries, and you can choose which one to contact as is your fancy. If you think that talking to an MP who is a member of the government will help your cause, then you can go and talk to him/her, or if you want to talk to an MP from your own party you can go and talk to him/her, or if you know one of the MPs has a strong interest in the problem you want addressed, then you can go and talk to him/her. It’s not that difficult a concept: many council wards have 3 councillors, and they all have surgeries!
35 - I don’t think it’s obvious at all. I doubt there are many people who “hate” their MP, and certainly not enough to try prevent them taking advantage of the help they can receive.
Larger constituencies mean (unless MPs are ‘assigned’ areas) that people might have to travel much further to reach the surgeries.
42 - (although given Conservative party policy was to reduce the number of MPs this point might be academic).
Anyway, like James says, it’s not going to happen
42. No, not at all; why should people have to travel further? There tends to be a geographical spread of MPs across the constituency anyway to begin with, and they also hold surgeries in different parts of the constituency on different weeks.
There are plenty of people who loathe their MPs party and a good number who feel the same about their MP.
42 - Alex, under the present system some MPs really don’t have to try very hard at casework. In my own local area I’m aware of one MP who holds weekly surgeries rotated around the constituency. I’m alsoaware of another MP who only holds monthly surgeries in the same place in a (much larger) constituency. One lives in a marginal Labour seat, the other in a safe Tory seat.
Diligent constituency MPs would rotate their surgeries. The important thing is that in a mult-member constituency there would be a direct comparison between the MPs who tried hard and those who didn’t.
I can tell you’re opposed to PR, but I suspect its because you think the Tories will be excluded from power permanently under this sytem (they wouldn’t (i) if they got 50%+ of the vote and/or they were prepared to form a coalition - see today’s Torygraph article for example as to how this might work). If so, say so, rather than invent spurious arguments against STV.
43 - I wouldn’t be too sure. This issue is very firmly on teh agenda and won’t go away. The election result has reconfirmed it. I’ve been amazed at how eg Any Questions audiences have been pro-voting reform in the run up to the election. Would the Telegraph have run an article supportive of PR 20 or even 10 years ago? I think not, and that of itself is evidence of how far up the agenda voting reform has now moved. As the article says (to paraphrase): “To people who say voting reform is for anoraks, when its raining this hard an anorak can be very useful.”
why not have stv vote but for the constituency alone.
46. Actually, what STV does is ensure that MPs have to work VERY hard on the ground on constituency work because there is no such thing as a ’safe seat’ any more. MPs always have to keep their ear to the ground for local issues because the party puts up more candidates than seats they expect to win; if you don’t do the surgeries and campaign for the schools etc., you will find at the next election that you’ve lost your seat to someone from within your own party who has been working on these issues.
48. The fewer the number of people to be elected to lower the level of proportionality; single-member seats under STV would still produce lots of crazy results.
Tabman, I don’t think electoral reform is off the agenda but I cannot foresee any realistic circumstances in which STV would be the system chosen.
Er a single member seat under STV is AV - as supported by a number of Labourites like Peter Hain. As I said on a previous thread I suspect this might be what eventually happens - but the next parliament will still be hung.
46 - I don’t know what I think about PR. I don’t think it would permanently exclude a rightish government, and I don’t believe there is a permanent centre-left majority in the country that has been kept out by the electoral system for most of the past century. I also think that going down the electoral reform route could be the most dangerous for the LibDems of all the three main parties - (especially now that they are doing increasingly better under FPTP (relatively) - in the past they had nothing to lose).
A critically important advantage of STV, (IMO), is that it allows people to express preferences for candidates across party boundaries. Thus electors who want to support female candidates, or those who live locally, or to select by stance on a cross-party ‘issue of conscience’, or even to vote for redheads, can do so.
Personally. btw, I reckon that a 3-seater to 7-seater range of constituencies would be about the best, (with 3-seaters only in the most rural regions).
The major parties wouldn’t like it - why would they want a system which would likely very quickly lead to them splitting into pieces?
If any changes are to be made, I favour a top-up system whereby 50 extra House of Commons’ votes are split proportionally between the party leaders, their names on a separate ballot with a single nationwide constituency. That way, one can show explicitly whether one is voting only for the local candidate.
52. Erm, STV for one candidate is not AV as under AV you only number your preferences 1 and 2, under STV you can put all candidates in order of preference.
55 - alex, I can foresee circumstances where eg the (Pre-Iraq) Blair would be very happy to lose his awkward squad off to some Trotskyite socialist party and have dealings with some of the more leeftish LDs and Tories.
Help!! Where can i fing a new list of Labour Marginals and all the stats after the new swings ajustments like the laergest and smallest swings etc.
56. No way - closed lists at the behest of party leaders are the most undemocratic form of PR on offer, and should be scrapped immediately. After a trial for local council elections, I think we can expect to see the Scottish Parliament move towards STV within the next ten years.
56 - Perhaps there could be eg. 100 votes assigned between each of the parties. These votes are just that “VOTES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS”. They elect no MPs. They are then cast by eg. the Party leader in Commons divisions. (any smaller party getting over 1% of the vote will therefore have one MP who will cast their party’s votes ;-)).
55 - I’m sure there have been times when Blair (or Major) would have been very happy to lose their Awkward Squads off to “purist” parties and deal with more like minded individuals from other parties.
61 - We’re not talking Awkward squads here Tabman. We’re talking fundamental realignment’s of the British political system into 4 or 5 (or more!)distinct groupings in parliament - that was after all the vision of Paddy Ashdown.
Obviously parties decide their views on electoral reform on the basis of self interest. The Tories still dream of a return to 18 years of power( yes really). I’m not aware of any significant Tory Parliamentary player who favours it- yet anyway. As for Labour tribalism still rules for many even at the top. Prescott and Straw, for instance. Relations with the LDs are very bad post election and I can’t see a huge rush by Labour to make a change which is seen to favour them although many fewer Labour MPs would lose out under PR post this election. One possible move for Labour would be AV( not PR ). This is supported by Peter Hain among others. This would be almost impossible for the LDS to swallow since their many policy anoraks would denounce it rightly as not proportional. It would, however, be very bad for the Tories. LD candidates signally failed to squeeze the Tory vote in many constituencies in 2005. AV would do the job for them. Lord Jenkins suggested AV plus i.e. a proportional top up and I suppose that might be a compromise that Labour and the LDs could support. Brown’s always been against electoral reform but he wants a second full term. The objection would be that you created two classes of MP-as in Germany and the Party bosses would choose many of the MPs ( something the public hate). That’s why the LDs have always favoured STV; you get much greater proportionality and keep the constituency link.
Back to betting for a sec… DD is the overwhelming favourite at the moment, but will his price be hit when people see the trouble he could be in over ID cards? MH has made it clear that no member of the shadow cabinet can change policy… therefore, when ID cards come up, DD won’t be able to oppose them in principle and will look a complete prat. Failing that, he will oppose them and MH has the perfect excuse to sack him just as he did Howard Flight. This might bring his price down, but he’ll still IMHO go on to win. Any thoughts?
55 & 62. In case you hadn’t noticed there are already 4 distinct groupings within parliament (Labour, Lib Dems, Conservatives, nationalists…)
65 - 4 or 5 (or more!) new distinct groupings within Parliament
64 - surely they’ll just have a vote at Shadow Cabinet and Davis’ view will win through.
62, 4, 5 - these supposedly new groupings already exist, they’re just brushed under the carpet of spurious party loyalty. Under PR they could campaign directly to the voters so the electorate, rather than party caucusses, would determine who was the dominant faction.
57. Chrisco, AV allows you to order all candidates in order of preference, so it is single-member STV to all intents and purposes. Preference voting limited to first and second preferences is usually known as Supplementary Vote, an example being the London Mayor election.
68 - Yes it’s the wonderful world that is our brave and democratic future, Tabman
Doesn’t make it any more likely that the Lab/Con leaderships would be interested in letting it happen.
23 Jon Are you really being Serious? Look at Italy most notoriously a few strikes Govt Caves in. Israel also, France. PR hands power notto the People but to powerful interest groups better able to bully smaller parties who in turn put pressure on their Coalition Partners.
You also did not answer my question on the fact that all these if not quite hard left but fervently Left wing groups who would Ban the Conservative party if they could want this system. Do you really think they would do so if they remotely thought it would assist a Conservative return to power?
64. That assumes that MH is also opposed in principle, but he isn’t. As an ex-Home Sec, he’s very sympathetic to the pro-cards views of the police and security services. The wider point is that, if MH can make this edict against new policy waiting for a new leader stick, it’s going to make life very difficult for the whole front bench who will only be able to stick to what was in the 2005 manifesto papers.
72 - Were you talking to yourself there?
I wish.
72 - I don’t think it will be too difficult for Shadow Ministers to do what they like while “sticking to the 2005 manifesto”. There wasn’t anything in it!
64.67.72.73.74 Clearly numbers aren’t my thing… let’s hope they are Osborne’s.
75. That’s why I referred to manifesto “papers”. There were plenty of supporting policies outlined that were not in the printed manifesto, but were linked to it via the website.
Yeah i know. The thing is it’s a bit of a non-issue. Of course the Conservatives aren’t going to produce a load of shiny new policies before the new leader comes in. What they will do, however, is just oppose everything the government does with the aim of causing Blair maximum trouble. Whether they oppose ID cards “on principle” or not is a bit irrelevant. What they will do is oppose them, as they did before the election. Votes in the shadow cabinet will presumably decide what line they take (short term) on various issues, and everything can always be changed after a new leader comes in anyway.
78. You’re probably right, alex, but it still could be a little uncomfortable for DD over ID cards.
Thanks all for having a go with PR. Most of my other non sequitors have been ignored.
I think that there is a reasonable likelihood of there being a hung parliament next GE. If thats the case, the LDs would do themselves a favour to have an agreed and sensible PR bill already for putting through the commons. Otherwise, somebody might try to sidetrack the issue with a royal commission/’task force’/enquiry or somesuch.
If jamie Oliver’s school meals campaign could produce no more than a ’schools meals task-force’ (tough to decide not to feed school-children junk?) think how easy it would be to postpone PR.
71. Using Italy as an argument against PR is the equivilant of mentioning the Nazis in an argument: it shows you have nothing serious to say. You mention France and Israel as bad examples of PR, well I can equally put to you the cases of Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands…
Eighty. Would still have to get through referendum. Unpopular Givernment, political carve up. You can hear the charges now. No means certain even then it would go through.
Italy is the way it is by nature. Just as Germany is the way it is with a different political system. People will vote for the government they want, and under STV they actually get it. And if it’s no good they will vote for a different one.
France was entirely spurious - it can and does change governments reasonably regularly but I don’t suppose anyone would describe it as unstable. Israel has pure proportionality not to mention a body of people for whom politics and religion are the same thing - again hardly relevant for the UK.
Conservatives oppose PR not because they can really find coherent arguments against it but because they want absolute power and believe, probably rightly, that if they wait long enough our system will deliver it to them again.
81.”Using Italy as an argument against PR is the equivilant of mentioning the Nazis in an argument”
I didn’t know that Italy and the nazis are now equivalant.
Btw Italian political instability was only partly due to PR. Since FPTP was adopted, we had 8 governments in 11 years. We still have coalitions even with FPTP. It’s difficult to change the electoral system after a lot of year of a previous ones.
Oh and the stuff about banning the Conservative party is paranoid nonsense. It’s about democracy. If under PR the BNP gets seats so be it.
84. lol, that is not at all what I meant Andrea. What I meant was that people who oppose PR always mention the example of Italy’s post-war governments; in the same way, people who can’t come up with a coherent argument against something mention Nazism. What I meant is that the two are cheap lazy and intellectually incoherent refuges in a debate for someone who is losing the argument.
Conservatives oppose PR not because they can really find coherent arguments against it but because they want absolute power and believe, probably rightly, that if they wait long enough our system will deliver it to them again.
That’s nonsense really. Of course they are attracted to a system that they perceive to favour them (or at least not disadvantage them) but that is (whatever they might claim) at least as true of many Liberal Democrats.
The fact that it tends to produce majority governments and it is easier to get rid of governments you don’t like are both “coherent arguments”, if you believe these things are very important.
Populus was showing massive Labour leads during the campaign.
Mori was fluctuating all over the place.
You Gov and BES was broadly holding steady, starting with the Tories ahead or roughly level and opening up a consistant small Labour lead.
So either Populus and Mori were wrong during the campaign or You Gov and BES were wrong.
Populus and Mori shouldn’t be able to take credit because they inexplicably and rather inexplicably just happened to end up with figures similar to ICM, the most proven pollster.
Why was Populus and You Gov using a 2 to 1 base for Labour past voters, but Populus had leads of up to 14 points and You Gov was about right? Populus was obviously doing something wrong.
I don’t buy this bank holiday excuse. The Populus tracker was massively out before and after the bank holiday. In my view that is a crap excuse for some embarressing poll figures.
81. Grief what did i do to upset you! I’m afaraid bringing the Nazis into a duscussion on PR is really bizarre as our Italian friend points out not very nice for them either.
85. As for banning them of course it was just hyperbole don’t take everything so bloody seriously. I was simply illustrating a point that all the most fervent PR supporters are those who wish the Conservative Party ill. Coincidence? Oh and where do the BNP come into things?
84. Andrea. Your hybrid system took a while to bed in and while MR Berlusconi resigned because of the techinicalities of Italian Law he is still the Longest Continuing Serving PM in Italy’s History Correct?
The only reason his Govt was threatened was because of the remaining element of PR in your system. BY now though under the old ways you’d probably had at least 5 or 6 different Prime Ministers.
86. Nothing of the sort and i’m sorry you feel the need to be abusive. Of course Italy is the most extrem example, but it is legitimate to use it in an argument. Other Countries have suffered similar situations to varying degree. Think i’ll have to close off now, why you felt the need to get so boilingly angry i have no idea.
It was interesting to debate but not worth continuin for the scornful abusive tone you adopt.
89. You are completely missing the point. I am not bringing the Nazis into a discussion on PR - quite the opposite! I am saying that bringing the Nazis into almost any argument is a sign of desperation, as is bringing the example of Italy into a discussion on PR.
90. I did not intend to sound abusive, and if I came across that way I apologise; nor, in fact, were my comments specifically in reference to you. However, I have had discussions on this topic many times and am somewhat exasperated by the fact that the first line of defence of about 90% of the people I have discussed it with and who oppose PR, are “but we will end up like Italy…” It gets a little tiring after a while. That said, I apologise again - trust me, I am anything boilingly angry! lol
89.”Your hybrid system took a while to bed in and while MR Berlusconi resigned because of the techinicalities of Italian Law he is still the Longest Continuing Serving PM in Italy’s History Correct?
The only reason his Govt was threatened was because of the remaining element of PR in your system. BY now though under the old ways you’d probably had at least 5 or 6 different Prime Ministers. ”
yes and no
His government was not threatened because of the remaining element of PR in your system. Many MPs elected in the party that opened the “government crisis” were elected with FPTP. The problem is that we still have coalition. Now parties built coalition before the election to try to gain more seats (it’s like Labour making a deal with the Greens to give them a free run in Pavillion and in exchange the Greens would not stand in other seats). And the end the Parliament is still full of little parties (maybe with 2% of votes) because the 2 big coalitions put candidates from these parties in safe seats. The PR part at the Senate is even more weird: the elected with PR are the “best losers” in FPTP seats (so many candidates in marginals at the Senate of the Republic usually manage to be elected).
83. “Israel has … a body of people for whom politics and religion are the same thing - again hardly relevant for the UK.”
Remind me, which is the fourth largest party in the new UK Parliament ?
94 - I remember reading a sci-fi book as a kid (”Stainless Steel Rat” by Harry Harrison) where the main character, Jim diGriz wanted to cover his tracks by deleting files on himself. To paraphrase, he deleted all the “D” files, then continued on to delete the “U” and “P” files because “DUP” was the most obscene word in that planet’s language
94. Lol, very good Lorcan, very good. Although it has to be said that the DUP has had to move way beyond it’s Free P core to obtain the electoral success it has achieved.
Jon @ &1. France does not have PR - it has a two ballot system in which the second round is FPTP. Neither does Australia for the House of Representatives - it has AV which is certainly not PR.
The main argument I have against PR (apart from the loss of direct constituencies which I accept does not apply to STV) is that it takes power to select governments away from the voters to the leaderships of the minority parties in secret backdoor deals without reference back to the electorate.
For example, when did the German voters have a say when the Free Democrats bolted Helmut Schmidt’s government to join Kohl and the Chritian Democrats mid term in the 1980s? Or the defection by the Irish Labour in 1994 from its coalition with Fianna Fail to Fine Gael: there was no election called until 1997. Or the similar frequent shifts in alliances in Benelux. Etc Etc.
There are many equally valid democratic as well as pragmatic reasons to resist PR as there are in its favour.
97 - John O - surely the answer is a written constitution whereby it states that were a coalition government to break down it would immediately trigger an election? Not an insurmountable problem IMHO.
Steve @ 98. A written constitution - now that IS a biggun. But would this be by and for the British people, or one specially tailored from Brussels? Wonder how I’ll vote on the referendum
“For example, when did the German voters have a say when the Free Democrats bolted Helmut Schmidt’s government to join Kohl and the Chritian Democrats mid term in the 1980s? ”
they could punish them at the next election if they don’t like their decisions.
Voters vote for MPs not for the PM. They give to MPs the duty to represent them and then if after 4/5 years they feel that they haven’t represented them well, they could vote for someone else.
OT: what do Leader of the House of Commons do? which are his powers?
96 - the DUP would also have several fewer seats under PR than under FPTP, incidentally, based on Thursday’s results.
99 - John, go on, go on, go on, surprise us all!
BTW - did you get elected?
100 - reminds me of my favourite election slogan ever by the Free Democrats - “Bismarck united Germany with blood and iron, Kohl united it with Hans Ditrich Gensher”. Very funny. They also once went with the slogan “The Party of the Rich” which is faintly reminiscent of those old Alan Whicker adds for the Cheltenham and Gloucester.
Why should there be an a priori reason tories are disadvantaged by PR? The last national election that was decided by PR was the EU vote last year. Didn’t UKIP + tories exceed Lab + LD? It doesn’t seem to me that there is any more (or less) overlap between UKIP and the tories and Lab (Nu or otherwise) and the LDs.
The tories can’t duck the issue either. A contender for the leadership ought to be asked his views. He can’t hide behind the skirts of ‘its just a hypothetical question’. “But its what the opinion polls suggest. If you can’t/won’t tell us, maybe we’d better vote for someone who’s thought about it, or more organised, or more up-front.”
97. “The main argument I have against PR (apart from the loss of direct constituencies which I accept does not apply to STV) is that it takes power to select governments away from the voters to the leaderships of the minority parties in secret backdoor deals without reference back to the electorate.”
The electorate do get a chance to pass judgement on the ‘backroom deals’ - at the next election. Rather ironically, in the example you mentioned, the Irish Labour Party took an absolute hammering in 1997, not because of their decision to leave the FF government and join with FG, but rather because of their original decision to go into coalition with FF. Republics can circumvent this problem somewhat by leaving the decision under these circumstances to the President, but I’ll admit that it would not be a good situation if the Queen was left to choose whether there was an election or not. Having said that, I think there is an argument to be had for not actually having an election; at times it can actually be in the country’s best interests.
On a more philosophical note though, our electoral system does not elect governments: it elects members of parliament who coalesce to form a government. In effect, our system leaves the choice of our government to half a million swing voters in a hundred seats. The rest of us can whistle as far as our preferences are concerned, and in fact, we always get a government that most of us did not choose.
Andrea @ 100: With respect, I tend to disagree. I think on May 5th the elctorate voted for parties on the basis of their programmes for government (sure, in a very few cases - George Galloway and the victors in Blenau Gwent and Wyre Forest, stands out in this regard - they were voting for individuals). They were NOT electing MPs to go to Westminster, discuss among themselves, and from those deliberations some sort of hybrid governmment would emerge with a programme significantly different from those their voters had endorsed just days previously.
Less controversially :), the Leader of the House is essentially the Government’s Parliamentary business manager. His/her principal job is to ensure that the legislation is enacted during the session while also recognising the rights of the opposition parties. He/she will work very closely with the Government’s chief whip, and both will liaise with their Conservative and LibDem opposite numbers. This is what is known as “the usual channels” and is indispensible to the Commons’s smooth running.
Tabman @103. By resounding acclamation and near universal affirmation
…but, um, not quite 50% + 1 of the vote. Not that affects my views on this thread. Oh no, absolutely not…
107. I agree that with FPTP people tend to elect the government and not the MPs. But with PR people vote for the party they prefer knowing that this party could decide to make a coalition with other parties or nor. Then after 5 years they could decide if they like what the party they voted did or not.
Surely parties will change some parts of their programmes for government to make a coalition, but also with FPTP parties don’t always follow their programmes
thanks about the Leader of the House.
Just for a laugh - taken from the Lib Dem Reading East website TODAY:
“Tories in Reading East should vote Lib Dem.” John Howson Lib Dem Candidate in Reading East said “it is clear from the polls that the Conservatives cannot win in Reading East. “If Conservative voters want to sure of not having another Labour MP, they should vote Lib Dem tomorrow.”
Ooops - since Tory Rob Wilson won the seat from Labour with the Libs in third place (as I predicted)!
111. Well done Rik, it appears that you are much better at predicting results in seats other than the one you are fighting in. Maybe if you fight somewhere else next time, the Tories might win Sutton & Cheam?
11 - and, of course, we didn’t come from third place to beat Labour in any other seats did we?
I have voted LibDem at the past few elections (and haven’t got anywhere near having a LibDem MP) but I am against PR. I agree with the view that it makes for weak government. I am also not convinced that it is a good idea having all MP’s spending all their time politicing locally in multi-member constituencies when they have been elected to spend their time in Westminster running the country.
Wasn’t it the introduction of PR in France that enabled Le Penn to get his big start nationally?
111- Brilliant! and congratulations for your advance in S and C
114- yes it was the national front’s best parliamentary result in 1986. Actually PR was introduced in that only aim by the french socialists (they hoped the national front would prevent a majority for the centre-right, the plan failed, but just…)
France has since 1988 a 2 round, FPTP system, which is working quite well. Thus i don’t understand why you all seem to consider that the only alternative to your unfair system is PR. The 2 round system provide clear majorities and clear mandates : all MP’s have to get a 50%+ share.
115 - after all, it’s not the winning its the taking part
114. Yes. When Mitterand cynically changed the system to PR to prevent the centre-right from gaining a majority (he failed just), that also enabled a National Front contingent of over 30 MPs IIRC to get elected. That declined to just 1 or 2 when the old system was reintroduced a couple of years later. But the damage was done.
111. People in glass houses and all that… Here is a little gem I found via the magic of Google (a piece of advice Rik: change the record for 2009!)
“By Richard Willis on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 01:54 pm: Edit
Here in Reading East the Labour party has disappeared. There are virtually no posters in windows for our local Labour MP and none at all on stakes. She seems to have no literature at all and local activist have put out generic old budget stuff. She has resorted to paying canvassers from London to come and canvass for her and has abused the House of Commons mailing system to contact people. Even in Reading West where the MP is more popular he has a fraction of the posters up that he had in 1997.
So for the first time in my life I am convinced that the polls are simply wrong. We are close on Labour’s heels in this election and a few more screw ups by them and we WILL win.”
On the basis of 2 elections Rik, it seems to me that having no stakes up and paying people to deliver leaflets seems to be a winning strategy!
testing…
111. People in glass houses and all that…
“By Richard Willis on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 01:54 pm: Edit
The Conservatives are widely acknowledged to have “won” the first week of the campaign and the second week has been a disaster for Labour. Jack Straw’s slow hand-clap by the Police was sadly pushed off the news by Tony Blair’s first encounter with someone not a Labour activist, and by John Prescott’s over-reaction to an egg thrower. Tony Bliar’s face was a picture as he didnt know what to say to someone who doesnt agree with him!
Here in Reading East the Labour party has disappeared. There are virtually no posters in windows for our local Labour MP and none at all on stakes. She seems to have no literature at all and local activist have put out generic old budget stuff. She has resorted to paying canvassers from London to come and canvass for her and has abused the House of Commons mailing system to contact people. Even in Reading West where the MP is more popular he has a fraction of the posters up that he had in 1997.
So for the first time in my life I am convinced that the polls are simply wrong. We are close on Labour’s heels in this election and a few more screw ups by them and we WILL win.”
That’s the thing about the internet, lots of what you post up stays there…
111, 121 - Chrisco, it’s like Groundhog day … look at this, another gem from the Willis stable:
“One thing people need to grasp is that the polls are quite simply wrong. They cannot all be right if MORI gives a 28% lead for Labour while ICM gives a 13% lead. The pollsters are going to have egg on their faces just as they did after the Euro elections and the local elections.
Posters are a real indication of support. Labour voters (like Lib Dems) by and large put up posters -Tories by and large dont. Hence why having so many Tory ones up in Reading and so few Labour is a noteworthy matter. Our canvassing also tells the same story. Last night we found very large numbers of switchers from Labour to Tory or to undecided. There is no way that our two local Labour MPs will be relected with a doubled majority which is what MORI is suggesting.
MORI has lost the plot on polling and I suspect that Gallup and ICM are nearer the mark.
Only time will tell - roll on polling day! ”
“polls are wrong” … “lots of switchers to Tory” … “great canvass returns” …
All vintage Rik Willis suff
122 - I should add the posting details: By Richard Willis (193.130.234.20) on Thursday, May 24, 2001 - 03:22 pm: Edit
116 - the two round system still isn’t proportionate though, is it? And it still doesn’t get around the fact that all 20,000 people who voted for Iain Dale in North Norfolk wasted their votes for example - it doesn’t make any difference to the argument that Norman Lamb picked up over 50%.
The two round system may have a lot to be said for it - but dishing out seats to reflect voting patterns isn’t one of them. It can be less proportionate than FPTP depending on how votes are distributed across the country.
As for Le Pen, I don’t like it that people vote for the man but that’s democracy and they should be represented. I don’t like that people voted for Galloway either but I wouldn’t want to see the system rigged against him.
122. “There is no way that our two local Labour MPs will be relected with a doubled majority” Just for the record, neither of the two Labour MPs doubled their majority: Jane Griffiths increased hers by 50% while Martin Salter tripled his…
122.” “lots of switchers to Tory” … “great canvass returns” …”
to be fair with Richard Willis, every candidate of every party seems to find switchers to him and great canvassing returns. At one point it seemed that nobody was going to vote the tories in Broxtowe (and that Labour was going to win bigger than in 2001); Labour was neck to neck with Adam Price in Carmarthen East & Dinefwr (according to Peter Hain), the Greens were going to poll more than 20% in one seat (not Brighton Pavillion, but another one), Labour canvassing returns were great in Bethnal Green (according to newspapers Oona suppoters couldn’t believe their eyes during the count), the Libdems were going to decapitate half of the world (Queen Marie-Antoinette is jelous of all this attention to Theresa May’s head) and so on.
124 I disagree with the view that any vote that is not for a winning candidate is a ‘wasted vote’. I haven’t voted for a winning GE candidate yet but I don’t regard all my votes as wasted. Ask the losing candidates who post here. I am sure that many them have been encouraged to carry on by the level of support they have been given even when they have lost. This is a vital part of the democratic process.
126 - Andrea, a good point, and one we gently tried to put, only to be told that we really shouldn’t carp and should respect the findings of someone who had many years of electioneering experience.
I think the Germans have a word for it …
Or how about….
‘The Tory strategy for the rest of the campaign is going to surprise quite a few people and I am more confident than ever of our chances of a major upset on May 5th.
Comment by Richard Willis — 11/3/2005 @ 8:22 pm’
Keep em coming…
Do you think we could pursuade a bookie to open a spreadbet on the number of ludicrously over optimitistic comments made by the defeated candidate for Sutton and Cheam?
I’m buying at 438
“64 - Dan - please carry on in your deluded state. When you wake on 6th May to find half your MPs gone then you will realise what you were up against.
[snip]
Comment by Richard Willis — 13/4/2005 @ 12:24 am”
That’s told you, Dan!
And so the rick-baiting by the ‘nice’ party continues!
We all I beleive got a few predictions wrong - I was sure we would take 3 Scottish seats and increase our share of the vote but we didn’t. I’m dissapointed but there’s no point in going over old ground.
Tabman - You confidently predicted that the Lib Dems would win Wells, come close in Wiltshire North and Devon East and lose Hereford. Didn’t quite happen.
Dan - you said we may well come third in DC&T - again it didn’t happen.
Perhaps we could find out more quotes from each others past but unlike Rik we don’t use our own names.
There were plenty over confident posters on this site but the vitriol directed at Rik is over the top. Its funny how quickly people point out faults in others that they refuse to acknowledge in themselves.
Max: if, say, Nick Palmer had lost, neither you nor I would be gloating - because he posts thoughtfully and without aggression. It really depends on the attitude and tone someone takes. If you post aggressively, expect it back at you!
I have to way in supporting Rik and Max. Nick P may not be an aggressive poster, but all his posts led us to believe he was heading for a near 10k majority. Anyway if a Tory poster, had expressed doubt on here, then any doubt could easily have seeped into the papers, for the Times to have a pop. Anyway we all got predictions wrong. I predicted the Tories would come closer in Richmond Park than they did.
133 - I get plenty of predictions wrong too. This is why I say it’s more about the tone someone takes towards the board.
Plenty posters were aggressive, no-one has a pop at them because they didn’t stand for election and we don’t know who they are. I think thats what makes it different. Rik’s an easy target because he tried but didn’t quite make it.
Perhaps we should have a kind of confessional where we all admit our worst predictions. I’ll go with 3-4 Scottish seats and coming second in the Scottish popular vote!
Ah well there’s allways Hollyrood 2007!
If we’re in the confessional box, Maidenhead didn’t really come off for us, did it?
136. My worst prediction was probably thinking that Nicholas Boles would have won Hove for the tories with a good margin when at the end he performed worse than in 2001.
I was also told (and then repeated here) that the Tories were going to do well in West Yorkshire. Winning Shipley doesn’t quite cut it.
On balance I think DC&T was the only one I called right!
Hoping I will be able to redeem myself in the upcoming Canadian election (same electoral system as our own). Here goes:
Cons will hold: Crow Foot, Red Deer and Medicine Hat (great names!)
Libs will hold: Mount Royal.
131 - Max, no-one’s really had a go at Marcus either. As BV has said, it’s more about tone than anything else. No matter, if you can’t see it you won’t get it (though plenty of others have).
My predictions were crap. OTOH, I wasn’t on here every night saying how I was going to sweep to victory and how my opponents were loonies. And as I stated what division I was standing in and for which party, its not rocket science to work out who I am!
My biggest failed prediction was that existing Lib Dem seats would be pretty safe from the Tories because Labour voters would make a tactical switch. The shock of the night for me was Newbury ans seeing David Rendel go - something I had not contemplated.
I was also shocked that Boles did not win Hove. I thought he would win it comfortably. Then again I though Iain Dale would win North Norfolk and everyone said we were going to win Selby. I really don’t know how labour held it. BTW, thinking back to the two constituency polls, it is a funny irony that we win Shipley where the poll put us 5 points behind but lose Finchley where the poll put us level. I wonder if it had a sublimal effect on labour voters, with those in Finchley returning to the fold knowing that voting LD would let the Tories in and those labour voters in Shipley thinking they could vote LD without the Tories getting in. Bit like the Enfield Southgate effect in 97, which labour only won due to a constituency poll the weekend before, which showed how the LD’s could TV Portillo out.
On Newbury, the Tories were undoubtedely boosted by the best local candidate in the party. Benyon and his family had farmed near Newbury for years. He had stood twice before. Also when there was a train crash nearby a year or two ago, he attracted good press for being the first onto the scene. Also Rendel was against fox hunting and won his seat in a by election which tends to distort results. Look at how close Romsey and Eastleigh now are and look at how Christchurch and Newbury are now clearly back in the Tory fold.
My worst predictions were:- we would win Enfield North easily; the Lib Dems would win Maidenhead; we would win Calder Valley easily; and we would win Dumfries & Galloway.
143. Apparently even the new Labour MP of Hove was shocked that Boles didn’t win (after the declaration of the result she praised him for his campaign). I noticed that in the 2 Brighton seats the tories had a result similar to the Hove one (down from 2001).
If Osborne or Cameron will become leader, they could help Boles to find a safe seat.
A curiosity about Hove: there were 5 openly gay candidates; maybe Labour was tragetting the “straight vote”.
For all the mockery directed at Rick, he was in fact quite right that opinion polls in the 2001 campaign were wrong, and that he was picking up switchers in Sutton & Cheam.