Did YouGov really get Ken’s result wrong last time?
January 25th, 2008
Can the pollster be accused of “persistently understating” his ratings?
With the row over Ken Livingstone’s custodianship of the London mayoralty continuing unabated the election on May 1st that will determine his future looks set to be the biggest UK political betting bonanza since the 2005 general election.
It has all the ingredients that make it attractive to punters - high profile contenders who everybody knows by their first names; passionate feelings across the political spectrum about the current incumbent and the prospect of a really tight race.
The big question if you are having a bet is how much can you trust can you trust the polls - particularly the ones from YouGov which looks set to carry out most of the surveys. When their first London poll of 2008 showed that only one point separated Ken and Boris there was an attempt in some quarters to rubbish the findings.
A spokesperson for the Mayor said: “Online polling has persistently radically understated Ken Livingstone’s support. A YouGov poll on the eve of the last mayoral election gave Ken Livingstone a lead of 1% whereas in the event Ken won by 11%.”
If that was the case then it would undermine punter confidence in the figures. So let’s go back to what actually happened four years ago.
On the day before the 2004 vote the Evening Standard carried a report of its survey from the pollster which found that amongst all potential electors Livingstone was beating Norris by 37% to 26%. When the second preference votes were taken into account, YouGov found a split of 55% to 45%.
The actual result after the second preferences were counted was Livingstone 55.4% to Norris’s 44.6% - which meant that YouGov was almost exactly dead on.
Where the confusion has come is that the paper also carried a figure of those saying they were “certain to vote” which had a Ken margin of 2%. These were the numbers that were splashed and the ones that got remembered. But this tight margin excluded respondents who had said they were “very likely to vote” or “would probably vote” which, I would suggest, distorts the overall figures.
YouGov is the only mainstream pollster that does not normally filter by certainty to vote.
In a poll on the election three weeks earlier YouGov found that Livingstone was winning by 35% to 23% - again a gap quite close to the winning margin. Criticism about last time should not be focussed at YouGov but at the Evening Standard’s coverage. That’s why I always say look at the polling details and not the news reports.
My concern over the 2008 poll is that the fieldwork took place over the holiday period which can have a distorting effect. Mark Senior, who posts here regularly on polling matters, has pointed out that there was a massive over-representation amongst the responders in the 55+ age groups and this had to be scaled back drastically.
What we need is a new poll. Latest Mayoral betting is here.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’m confused. Normally you start a new thread just after I’ve posted, as a fiendish plan to stop people seeing my messages. This time you’ve started a new thread just before I’ve arrived, so I’m the first in.
I sometimes think that it would be worth having a variation of AV or SV (or even STV) in which the non-transferable votes are retained by the candidate who last had them, instead of being dumped in a “non-transferable” pile. It wouldn’t make any difference to the result in real terms, but it would emphasise the fact that a voter who is not content with the surviving candidates has actually made a principled choice and not just not bothered. At the moment I am more likely to abstain in the second round than I have ever been before; I am usually strongly instinctively against any spoiling of ballot papers.
Another point to bear in mind is that most insane people (i.e. ordinary members of the public who are not particularly interested in electoral systems) are still greatly confused by how the system works, and don’t understand what the second votes are about. This is not helped by the media coverage which often refers to votes being “added” rather than “transferred”.
Huh? So what if “too many” 55+ were interviewed? In common with all the blue chip pollsters YouGov always weights properly re age group (+ gender, socio-economic group, etc).
My only concern would be: did they weight by the demographic profile of London, or of the whole UK? I suspect that that could make a significant difference!
Huh? So what if “too many” 55+ were interviewed? In common with all the blue chip pollsters YouGov always weights properly re age group (+ gender, socio-economic group, etc).
My only concern would be: did they weight by the demographic profile of London, or of the whole UK? I suspect that that could make a significant difference!
Huh? So what if “too many” 55+ were interviewed? In common with all the blue chip pollsters YouGov always weights properly re age group (+ gender, socio-economic group, etc).
My only concern would be: did they weight by the demographic profile of London, or of the whole UK? I suspect that that could make a significant difference!
Sorry for double posting: I got a server error message the first 2 times, and I am posting from a mobile, which is always a pain.
Yes, they did. As far as I’m concerned if pollsters allow themselves to be dictated to in how their polls are conducted, and then let them be published, then, if wrong, they deserve the subsequent dimunition in their reputation that will result. It’s no good arguing that they didn’t really ever believe that the poll was valid.
It does not, however, follow that a poll conducted this time on a different basis will also be wrong.
I also feel that filtering ANY poll via those who are “certain to vote” should logically be pretty accurate if conducted a few days before an election. That is why Mori often come into line with other pollsters near to election day. The fact that it doesn’t work with YouGov only serves to undermine their whole methodology IMO.
1. But that is what happens already under those systems. The number expressing further preferences is recorded, as is the number who do not. Whether the non-transferables are physically placed in one pile (and I don’t think they usually are, btw) is neither here nor there.
Also, if it is rational to vote at all (and one can make out a good case that isn’t), it is also rational to utilise one’s available preferences to the full extent, discriminating between candidates one actively dislikes.
2-4 If a sample should contain 220 over 55’s and contained say 250 , then it is not a problem as the weighting will take care of that . If as in this poll the number of over 55’s was 498 , then at the least the MofE will be increased as some of the other age groups will have substantially fewer people polled than they should have had .
There is certainly good reason to be sceptical about the Mayoral poll ratings if what you’re saying is true, but no-one should have been taking the polls as gospel anyway!
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
btw, missed in the melee over Hain yesterday, the government published its long-awaited “Review of Voting Systems”
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/voting-systems-review.htm
It’s all pretty dense stuff, but the gist is: the gov will only consider reform of the Commons after it has finished its tinkering with the House of Lords…
Responses:
http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?p=1198
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_facey/2008/01/promises_promises.html
As the election will probably be decided on second votes it will be a challenge for the pollsters to predict the result. My gut feeling is that second votes are much more volatile and may move in the last few days.
11 So that will be “Never”, then, won’t it, Rod?
Mike’s point is a good one, and also relevant for other polls at the moment. If all the institutes took a snapshot national poll today I’d expect a really substantial difference between polls like ComRes that exclude anyone who (1-2 years out) is ‘certain’ to vote and polls like YouGov that don’t care how certain you are.
There are a lot of depressed “Labour, I suppose, if I bother” voters around after recent events, and they will count mostly as Labour in YouGov and nothing at all in ComRes. When there’s a high-profile horse-race many of these do in fact vote Labour (though obviously not all), and this is likely to be what helped Ken last time.
Before I’m accused of spin, let me clarify that I’m not saying ‘all polls are understating Labour’, but that YouGov may be the better guide both in London and nationally at present than the others (especially ComRes) to how people actually vote.
By the way, do check out the Ron Paul video plugged in my post at the end of last thread - it’s seriously funny.
[11][14] Actually, the Govt’s position is perfectly reasonable. Culling the hereditary peers didn’t tarnish the result of the 1997 election: the Queen’s Assent to a Bill introducing an elected element to the Upper House would, in practice, require a Dissolution, as the precedents from the 19th century are unequivocal - an exntension of the franchise must be followed as soon as possible (in those days, as soon as the electoral roll had been compiled) by a dissolution.
I would go so far as to say that this is the only surviving remnant of the Royal Prerogative: if a Prime Minister refused to recommend a dissolution following a franchise extension (which is what the introduction of an elected element to the Lords is), the Sovereign would still have the right (and possibly even a duty) to dissolve anyway. It could therefore be argued that Lords reform will never happen because no Prime Minister would wish to lose their right to time a dissolution.
[16] Although there is one precedent that goes the other way - the equalisation of the voting age for women in the 1920s (only women over 30 had the vote from 1918-1924) wasn’t followed by an immediate Dissolution. I still think the general point holds.
13. But whose second votes will be the most important? Obviously, the top two candidates’ second preferences will not be counted, and the only other really large groups will be the Lib Dems and hte Greens. It is difficult enough for pollsters to find enough of them as first preferences, never mind accurately interrogating them as to their second preferences. I think both Labour and the Conservatives will be very polite to the other two large-ish parties: because if they offend those voters, theuy will not get the second vote transfers.
Maybe a small-scale end to Punch & Judy politics after all…
This morning I have dedicated this record to Peter the Punter and all the pb “top ten tote syndicate” hoping for a successful day at Cheltenham this Saturday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qoymGCDYzU
re 15. ComRes only exclude those who rate their chances of voting at 0-4. The rest are included but the results weighted by the number they chose.
ICM include, without attaching any weighting all those rating their certainty in the 7-10 range.
Mori produce two tables each month - all those giving a response on the voting question and those who say they are certain.
I cannot remember what Populus do.
YouGov does not attach any weighting.
Also worth reading on the last thread, the report on the ground from someone involved in the Sandwell by-election (intriguingly from “Observer” but I guess a different observer from the one Mike was pursuing).
1 I actually think that “spoiling” a ballot paper is in some circumstances a very responsible act. Rather than spoilt papers just being destroyed - in the manner of a school student who has written something “naughty”, I feel that there should be some duty on Returning Officers to publish statements made on spoiled papers, especially where there is a clear trend among them - if comments are of the nature; “f… you all - politicians are idiots / corrupt” etc, it may not help, although if such ballots make up more than a certain percentage, the problem should be made known locally (and compared with national figures). Democracy is about making your views known at an election - this is sometimes the only way to do that anonymously - and it could increase turnout, probably making more urgent the issues of “reconnection with voters” and especially, political and citizenship education.
16 I think that’s my point, Innocent - for whatever reasons, the government will *never* finish tinkering with the HoL; therefore they will never be able to start on reforming the HoC and the voting system.
20 - thanks, Mike - my mistake. Populus and ICM have similar weightings, and my comment on particular caution about ComRes in the light of what you say should apply to MORI instead.
re 18 The Green 2nd prefs went strongly to Ken last time but I think that the Simon Hughes vote went about 50-50.
So in total Norris got 125K second prefs added while Ken got 135k added.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_mayoral_election,_2004
20: Populus don’t filter by likelihood to vote, they only weight by it - so someone who says they are 10/10 certain to vote counts as a whole person, someone who is 9/10 likely is only 0.9 of a person, 8/10 is 0.8 of a person and so on down the line.
22. Quite right. I spoiled my ballot paper in the euro elections in 1994, with no anti-EU candidate on offer. I did the same in a local election due to seeing both candidates as profoundly unsuitable to be a councillor. In both cases I explained my decision on the ballot paper.
14. The White Paper on Lords reform is due this year, isn’t it? While actual change for the Commons now looks impossible before the next election, it does seems possible that Labour could include a definite commitment to change in its manifesto. It would have to look non-partisan though. I could see them creating something like the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly to deliberate over the issue…
28 There was something in their 1997 Manifesto, and look what happened to that!
28. If it was non-partisan, it would be pointless though, wouldn’t it?
19 Goupillon.
Can’t stand that bloody song. Mind you, I’ll probably be singing it if it wins on Saturday.
Here is a little mathematical conundrum for you. What number, if compounded at 6% per year, becomes 800m… but if compounded at 16% per year becomes worth 1.8bn? And how many years would this take? And if multiplied by 20% per year, would this number be 3bn?
These are some of the questions posed by recent revelations that, in order to pay for the Olympic Games, money will be ‘borrowed’ from the National Lottery Fund; to be repaid from land sales once the great sporting jamboree is over. Sorting through the tangled maze of last week’s statements on this matter it appears that the government needs to recoup £800m from land sales post 2012, in order, says Ken Livingstone ‘to repay all the debts that we have incurred.’ I wonder whether this includes interest on the borrowed money? Somehow I doubt it.
This figure, described as ‘conservative’ – I’ll come to this in a moment! – assumes 6% annual appreciation of the value of the land. Ken, though, reckons that the sale of land is more likely to bring in £1.8bn. This is based on annual appreciation of 16% per year, a figure that should have every investor rushing to Stratford, but which is bizarrely described by Ken as ‘quite cautious’.
We can derive from these calculations that the land is presently worth about £470m. But to confuse the matter still further the London Mayor’s director of planning and regeneration, Neale Coleman told the Commons’ Culture, Media and Sports Committee that ‘using the average land price inflation of 19% over the last 20 years, the LDA could make £3billion.’
This cannot be the case. If the land is now worth £470m then 19% annual appreciation takes its value to £2.3bn. You would need 23% annual appreciation before you got £3bn.
This little political spat raises all sorts of questions, of which whether or not Ken Livingstone and his henchmen can do maths is the least important. The two big questions are: what is conservative? And, is the past any guide to the future?
25 - I think that clearly whoever is in the lead on first prefs has a natural advantage as they need less 2nd prefs to push them over the line. One imagines that the 2nd pref profile of Ken and Boris is irrelevant as they won’t factor into the equation. Paddicks is probably key if the people who vote Paddick 1st pref decide that there second pref is anti-ken then they will break heavily for Boris. Also the other thing to consider is that clearly if your 2nd pref is not one of the top two then your 2nd pref isn’t counted so ergo winning the 1st pref fight is critical.
re 101 last thread. Mike although he had something interesting to say about the Sandwell by election - if ever there was a dodgy sounding result then this might be it - I’m surprised that you’ve not banned Observer.
32. Surprise surprise the Olympics turns out to be another colossal waste of public money - but a feeding trough for selected corporate interests. The hallmark of New Labour once again.
32 - I think that as with most calculations involving a political dimension, the starting point is the figure you need to arrive at. You then work backwards from there and fiddle the figures. Finally you describe it as ‘conservative’ which only means ‘we can just about get away with this’.
My advice to anybody betting on the Mayoral Election is to be extremely wary of anything the Evening Standard publishes on the matter.
36. This wouldn’t happen if Livingstone was made personally liable for any cost overruns.
[38] If the politicians who signed off public works projects were made personally liable, there wouldn’t be any public works projects… or do you want to have one rule for Ken and another for everyone else?
39. I’d be happy to extend the principle - though I think it would be particularly appropriate for the likes of comrade Ken.
38 - It happens with governments of all persuasions. They inflate the return and deflate the outlay on all public works projects.
41. Of course - though socialist governments tend to be worse. So let’s do something about it. Surcharge them for overruns that result from fiddling the numbers.
35,Would you prefer we were NOT hosting the 2012 Olympics?
42. I’d be wary of doing that as the implications would probably be to make things far worse.
So thats it then! the world nearly came to an end, wailing and gnashing of teeth, and it was all down to some ‘bloody frog’.
3.5 billion I’ve heard of fiddling the petty cash, but thats ridiculous!
Nick P. That Ron Paul video was so excellent I’m attaching a link here. That’s what Party Political ads should look like!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrdRtu2nnT0
43. Yes. I object to bread and circuses exercises at the best of time, but especially when they also involve wasting vast sums of public money and lining the pockets of a select few.
45 - I think the Frenchman is a convienient scapegoat. There are serious questions about SocGen notably, where on earth were their compliance team? How did they only notice when the fraud was up in the billions? There are also questions that need to be asked elsewhere like, are we sure it isn’t happening elsewhere?
43 Personally, I have always opposed the idea of London holding the Olympic “Games”. We don’t have the infrastructure, accommodation, money or organisational ability for an event which is now bloated out of all proportion to its significance. Furthermore, I think we already have enough duplicity, drugs, cheating and ersatz sentimentality in London without having to import a load more.
OT. Romney now odds on for Florida primary ahead of McCain [FWIW Dick Morris called it for Romney with McCain second on Fox last night]. Best price is now 5/6 with Ladbrokes.
48
Thats the worrying thing, who else is up to it, put your money under the bed.
49. Bravo Augustus.
Yup, AC, if Boris can come up with a cunning plan to rid London of ersatz sentimentality in favour of the kosher kind, he should be home and dry…
48. It is certainly very hard to believe that a junior trader could run up positions of 30-40bn euros without anyone noticing. Lots of interesting alternative theories doing the rounds today.
54 - He is apparantly ‘happy’ to talk to the police, looks like he might have an interesting story to tell!
46. cont…..No one can do a hard sell commercial like the Americans. The British invariably end up with someone manic shouting at you or a well known soundrack changed to incorporate words such as ‘Reduced’ ‘Slashed’ or ‘hurry’ with a lot of urgent red banners all over the screen. Unlike the UK the vast majority of American ads are ‘hard sell’ which I’m sure is the reason they do them better.
There was also a YouGov poll done for Sky News that was about the London Mayoral Election as well:
1st Round: Livingstone 35% (Actual: 36%), Norris 31% (Actual: 28%), Hughes 18% (Actual: 15%), Others 16% (Actual: 21%)
2nd Round: Livingstone 53% (Actual: 55%), Norris 47% (Actual: 45%)
54.Blotter. What kind of stories? I must say I find this much more interesting than all the tosh being written about Hain.
Daily Mash take on the French trader…
fantastic Ron Paul video
OT do we think that Obama will use the former President’s increasing prominence in campaign to his advantage by playing the “Forward not Back” card more - if Hilary is letting herself be tied closer and closer to Bill (to be almost a double candidacy), will Obama think she’s now more vulnerable to being the candidate of the past - ie Obama saying “sorry Bill (and..err..Hilary) you had your chance, let’s go forward with Obama, not back with Bill (and..err..Hilary)”
58 Well, Roger, Here’s one for you. Imagine you are a French Bank Manager, with a load of sub-prime, monoline insurance, trading, bad debt and other losses building up. Sooner or later, you are going to have to ‘fess up. What to do? Well, fortunately, one of your junior traders has been a bit naughty and lost a packet. (NB: this is different from being a bit naughty and *making* a packet.) So, you think to yourself, “Quel surprise! What a bon jour pour interrement le bad news!” So the dealer is made out in the Press and elsewhere to be a master criminal so dastardly that he has cost the Bank a year’s profits.
In due course, the auditors, regulators, risk managers and others will do the sums, and a small article will appear on page 94 of Paris Match saying that the dealer only did them for €X million, not €Y million, and the rest of the bad debt was from other sources. But that won’t be so newsworthy, and your reputation as a jolly clever French Bank Manager will be relatively unscathed.
And if the fraud went on for a few years, that would mean that the Bank’s profits have been overstated – so you will be able to reclaim some tax. So it’s not all bad news for you after all.
48. I agree. Either it is the most monumental cock-up in SocGen’s management oversight - in which case the entire board should surely resign, inc the CEO; or it is something more sinister (subprime losses? fundamental problems in the bank’s dealings?) and this dude is the fallguy.
My natural distrust of the French inclines me to believe the latter.
Moreover, I would like to know just where has the money gone. 7.4 BILLION dollars doesn’t slip down the back of the sofa.
But apparently this guy didn’t make a centime. So where is the money? Cui bono? Who profited? Show me the money!!!
35-I do.
I was hoping the Greeks would make such a hash of things that the Olympics would be quietly put away.
Oh well, humbug!!!
62 - I think the money lost is a realisable paper loss on trading activity.
O/T if anyone is unsure about the ‘rules’ for the US Conventions - and wants to be entertained as well as informed - check out this:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Jan24.html
On a pedantic point. The Mayoral election is not a preference voting system and it is technically wrong to refere to the second ’supplementary vote’ as ’second preference’.
The system is truly terrible and designed to prevent insurgent campaigns from winning. Not even the Labour Party use it for their own internal elections.
64. Me stupid. So SocGen has lost $7.4bn. Understood.
But doesn’t that mean someone has profited? Surely? Or was the money virtual money that never existed?
In which case what’s the problem?
This probably sounds amazingly thick. No surprise. I can’t even work out my own tax returns.
66 - Indeed - and what’s ironic is that it was only implemented in an attempt to make sure Ken didn’t get elected… whereas now it’ll help him stay in if anything.
60. That would be a big mistake for Obama - Bill Clinton is incredibly popular among Democrats.
The opposite is true for the Republicans - no candidate would present themselves as the ‘Bush/Cheney continuity’ candidate.
Hmmm… From the Washington Post:
“Bank of France Governor Christian Noyer said in a radio interview Societe Generale’s accounts were now clean after the bank moved to unwind positions built up by a lone trader under the noses of his supervisors.
Noyer dismissed speculation that some of the losses pinned on the trader were due to the ongoing global credit crisis, but hinted other French banks could announce writedowns linked to credit market losses when they report earnings.
“We know exactly what the exposures are. The provisions have been announced or will be announced in the coming days, where necessary,” Noyer told RTL radio.”
Yeah, right.
67 - From what I understand the guy lost huge amounts on futures trading, so the people making the profit are probably on the otherside of the bet. The problem is that financial markets nowadays are so convaluted that trying to work out money flows is akin to untying the Gordian knot!
67 - Difficult to say, spread amongst all the players in the financial markets. (Trying to put it in terms you might understand - it’s like you go to an auction and buy a huge collection of books at £1 a book, and then realise that instead of buying 50, you made a mistake and now own 50,000 and don’t have the money to pay the auction house. You thus have to sell all the excess books that you didn’t really want, but nobody will buy them at £1 a book, and only pay you 50p (clearly not Sean Thomas originals…
). You have thus lost 50p x 50,000 = £25,000. Who has made this money, well a combination of the person who you originally bought them off at £1 each who you overpaid, and the people who bought them off you at 50p each who underpaid.) Hope that makes some vague kinda sense…
32 Sounds like voodoo economics to me when people suggest that property prices are going to soar, just become some people have been running and jumping and splashing about in a pond in some newly built sheds in Hackney.
The Olympics will cost an obscene amount of money and make some very dubious people look very important for a fortnight - and allow them to get very wealthy in the years running up to it. And after it has all finished, Hackney will still be the poorest part of London. And still no-one will want to go there.
Or I could be wrong. Look at how Charlton is now the coolest place on the planet after the Billionenium Dome…just as Blair and Falconer promised it would be.
67 - It was apparently on vanilla futures contracts - which SocGen panicked and unwound on the 19th/20th when the stock markets were plummetting - so, theoretically, there should be some other banking institutions out there that have profited from their pain. That said, the contracts may have been matched against actual holdings, so they might be offset by unrealised lossses on existing portfolios.
Of course, this assumes SocGen’s story is completely true. Personally, I’m as sceptical as James Burdett and Blotter.
72. Yes, that’s kinda what I figured (after racking my tiny brain) - basically the profit has been spread out amongst a lot of other dealers, traders, speculators, etc.
A lot of mildly happy people = one very unhappy bank.
Here’s another strange aspect:
“A senior bank board member told Reuters that Kerviel “was not a star,” but Bank of France Governor Christian Noyer told reporters that the rogue trader was a “genius of fraud.”"
On the one hand we are told this guy was an underling, on $100k a year, about what a cleaner earns at Merril Lynch. So clearly not a great financial talent.
And yet the French Establishment wants us to believe he is the Bin Laden of bank fraud, a master manipulator of the most obscure financial derivatives.
Doesn’t add up.
74 what i dont get is that to lose 3.7bn then the outstaning position must have been huge in notional terms. even if you assume that the mkt went 10% against him that implies a notional position of 37bn…..how did that go unnoticed by the exchanges?
75. Indeed…and it doesn’t take an expert to see that, either. More to come on this story, no doubt.
Still! it would be difficult explaining it to Karl Mark.
‘Well Karl you remember all those books you wrote all those complicated reasons , (so complicated nobody actually understood any of it) you gave for the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Well capitalism did collapse, ‘cos some arse put the entire worlds stock of money on the 3:30 at Kempton Park’
69 - Bill Clinton’s stock has plummeted over the last few weeks with many Democrats. If, as they are, they are starting to agree with what Republicans have always said then the break has to be not just from Bush but from the Bush/Clinton hegemony.
Do Democrats really want to change the future or do they want to try and change the last eight years instead? That’s the choice that they need to make.
76 - Indeed something fishy about all this, especially as the markets are saying oh the crash happened because of this when they only found out about it after it all very post hoc ergo propter hoc
76. Exactly - see my point from earlier on. It makes little sense.
80 I think they are saying that the market was weak on Monday, but the enforced selling by Soc Gen made it worse. There is no doubt that Soc Gen were heavy sellers on the day.
67. “Or was the money virtual money that never existed?”
The entire banking system is based on money that never existed…
Try Googling
“fractional reserve lending”
82 - That makes slightly more sense although how one guy could get that exposed when in my job you have to get compliance agreement before you can even blow your nose!
84 Don’t worry, James, it’s at times like this that Compliance will really come in to its own. One thing that all Regulators and all Boards agree on is that if something goes wrong, Compliance will be there to take the blame. Think of your Compliance Department as a sort of lightning conducter designed to divert all possible pain and suffering away from senior management.
O/T - Purnell reckons Labour isn’t tainted by the donor rows. Oh dear, what a comlete muppet!
84 - Quite. The fact that these ‘previously unknown’ positions were healthily in the black at 31/12/07 does raise questions about the solitary ‘rogue trader’ explanation.
61. Augustus. Thanks. And very entertainingly explained!
Re London elections I did some analyiss on the Scottsih councils which use a transfer system. There is often a wide dispersion of second votes which leads to whoever gets most first votes winning. The one exception is that the Lib Dems get much more second votes than anyone else. If the Lib Dems could stay in the race on the first votes they will be the favorites to win.
85. hahaha indeed
:)
Oh gawd;
My only colleagues who are “into” politcs are a couple of gold standard-obsessed space cadets, so I have to visit PB instead to keep up with the non-nutty stuff…
And what do I find on today’s thread? Only Ron Paul videos and the problems of fractional reserve banking. agh!
89. I think you might find that, in Scotland, the Greens were even more transfer-friendly than the Lib Dems, but of course the Greens did not contest as many wards.
89 - That’s the case in London last time where Simon Hughes easily won the second vote (but wasn’t in the race to take advantage of it).
93 - Isn’t that the problem with a two stage election without a second stage? Large numbers of voters are effectively disenfranchised on the second count simply because their vote is for someone no longer in the race.
Normally I do not comment on by election results but a couple of interesting results yesterday that indicate the by election capability of parties in certain regions. Both by elections were due to death and not scandal.
In Sandwell (West Midlands) the Lib Dems suffered a major defeat to Labour. Although Labour’s vote (and the Conservatives) only increased by a few % the LD vote collapsed by 7%. LDs say that Labour got a very large postal vote. Indications are that in the west midlands Labour’s campaigning team out performed the LDs.
In North/West Hampshire, Conservatives lost a seat on Basingstoke council to the LDs and the Council to NOC (Mayoral vote). This is p art of a trend of by election defeats to LDs in Hampshire and should send alarm bells within CCHQ about the campaign effectiveness in Hampshire. The LDs were able to call in resources from a wide area to support their activity.
So I suggest that Labour would welcome a parliamentary by election in West Midlands, the LDs would not and likewise the LDs would welcome a parliamentary by election in Hampshire whereas the Conservatives would not.
95 HF, I don’t particularly disagree with you, but is it reasonable to call a decline of 7% a “collapse”?
95 - There could also be local factors in each, unpopular policies for instance. It is in my opinion quite likely that the Conservatives may lose seats on my council in May due to a deeply unpopular new refuse policy. This is in rock solid territory for them and would have zero bearing on any by-election/general election.
94 - indeed, it’s a stupid system and should be replaced by AV which would ensure that the winner gets over 50% of the vote, but doesn’t ‘force’ the choice and makes sure that all votes are actually counted.
But given Labour’s record on dodgy postal votes etc, having an election system that reflects the will of the people has never been a priority for them.
No, a 7% decline isn’t a collapse.
95 - a slightly one-eyed view, but reasonably fair.
As Augustus says - if 7% is a ‘collapse’ what is a 20% drop in the vote? (The Tory vote in Basingstoke was down 20%).
I’d also point to two factors in the Sandwell result. With the death of popular, long term representativwes (Martyn Smith who used to post on here) you’re never sure whether in defending the seat you get a ’sympathy vote’ or whether the previous incumbent’s vote was purely personal.
Also there appears to be a very large and organised postal vote by Labour among asians and we all know Labour’s record in the West Midlands on this. The Lib Dem campaign is claiming that on the day they were more than 100 in front, which gives you an idea of how dominant Labour were in the postal vote.
100. Careful - you are close to alleging fraud there with no evidence.
96 Augustus and 99 Sean. I viewed 7% as a collapse as it was almost a 1/5th decline in the LD vote share.
But let us just call it a “large decline” in the LD vote.
I’m interested to see whether the owners of London’s freesheets choose to use them for political purposes. Currently, these papers are pretty apolitical and more concerned with showbiz, sport and light entertainment - which reflects the interests of their readers.
As the election approaches, I suspect the owners will use them to back Boris, if only indirectly. The readership is not the most likely group to vote (young, lowish paid, workers), but by osmosis or whatever, a bit of anti-Ken message may seep through.
AM Metro = Associated Newspapers = 600,000
PM London Lite = Associated Newspapers = 350,000
PM The London Paper = News International = 300,000
PM Evening Standard = Associated Newspapers (costs 50p) = 300,000
As was said yesterday, George Galloway is standing on an “old labour ticket” for the GLA : http://tinyurl.com/3xr52e
If this takes away a bit of support from Labour and Respect, it will benefit the Greens and the BNP (the +5% parties) when the calculations are done to apportion GLA list seats. I think this is right, but others will understand the maths better than me.
102 - so what’s a 20% fall in vote share?
7% isn’t a collapse. But it is careless!
In these by-election what was the turnout? Tragically low I would imagine.
103. The Metro will surely be read mostly by users of public transport, rather than car drivers? So I don’t think we’ll see a pro-Tory line there.
95. HF: “This is part of a trend of by election defeats to LDs in Hampshire and should send alarm bells within CCHQ about the campaign effectiveness in Hampshire. The LDs were able to call in resources from a wide area to support their activity.”
HF, if the Lib-dems want to keep themselves busy fighting district council by-elections and glorying in their “victories”, that’s fine by me.
It takes their focus off the national scene and adds to their delusions of success.
97. James: “This is in rock solid territory for them and would have zero bearing on any by-election/general election.”
Careful, you’ll upset Mark Senior
Implying that district council by-election victories are indicative of national success, is rather like saying Leatherhead High School Under-11s are going to win the FA cup because they beat Guilford Grammar in a charity football match.
100/101 - He has got evidence. Firstly, there is a pattern of fraudulant postal voting in the West Midlands particularly in Asian communities (not just Labour in fact). Secondly, there were a lot of postal votes from Asian communities. Thirdly, those present at the count report that the postal vote very heavily favoured Labour in contrast with non-postal votes.
This wouldn’t add up to anything like a criminal case (indeed some of the evidence wouldn’t be admissible). But it is certainly “evidence” in a very real sense of the word, and it is not unreasonable to express the concern that there might have been funny business, nor probably libelous to express a view over your opinion of the likelihood of that being so.
[103] In London everyone uses public transport, and every car owner is affected by the C-charge, so I would say that most people’s votes are up for grabs- Metro, London Lite and the rest are quite likely to take a critical view of the current incumbent, even if Boris might be still too much of a joke candidate for people to stomach.
100. Dan. I remember a Martyn Smith who posted here but I always thought he was Labour. If it’s the same one can you tell us something about him because I always found his posts interesting and informed.
Sandwell was certainly a good performance from Labour they certainly pulled out all of the stops and out performed the other parties in their campaign . I suspect though that much of the LibDem fall was due to the absence of Martyn’s personal vote . One other comment especially for those who think turnout at the next GE will increase is that despite very strong campaigns from all 3 parties turnout fell in this byelection . The voters as a whole are not particularly enamoured with any party at the moment and as someone pointed out yesterday , it was one thing to tell a pollster that they will vote for Party X but a different story if they have to actually get out of their armchairs and do so .
108 - Agree. Also I think we need to remember that Labour have been eviscerated in large areas of Local government in this country. Conservatives have been in control of some councils for 6-7 years and so consequently we are going to see a rise in highly local votes, although somewhat offset by an accelerated national trend. So I think we will begin to see more ‘interesting’ results.
111 There is also a Martin Smith who posts on here from time to time .
108 Keep deluding yourself and ignoring real votes , that is how your party lost Solihull .
112 - Turnout fell compared to what? A previous by-election or a cyclical election? If the latter then you cannot make any analysis to what would happen to turnout in a GE as out of cycle election turnouts are often significantly lower than cyclical elections.
114. Thanks Mark. I wasn’t sure whether it was Martin with an ‘I’ or ‘Y’. I guess it must be the other one.
16 Fell compared to last May , turnout in Basingstoke was a decent 40+% . You Conservatives keep posting that Labour are deeply unpopular and the voters are waiting for the chance to give them a good kicking , the evidence is that your thinking is false .
107, 110 I agree it’s not a bit arguement in the whole equation, there does seem to be growing media antipahy towards Ken, and these are useful tools for the media owners to keep up the attack.
Much of the Gilligan anti-Ken stuff has been kept out of the freesheets (even though it’s the same stable). I think as the election approaches, stories about Ken’s unsuitability may start to displace stories about Amy, Britney, Becks and co.
re 109 after all the Council Of Europe has said that it is open to fraud. The current system allows the head of the household - an important position in asian families to control and complete all the postal votes in his household. This could happen even when all the procedures have been carried out correctly without any political interference.
As Mark Senior keeps on pointing out, it is only the Lib Dems who are doing well at the moment. Nick Clegg’s leadership is inspirational, especially compared to Cameron.
Thanks Mark Senior for showing us how well the Lib Dems are doing.
Paddick for Mayor!
118. Now who is being dellusional.
118 - Hence my point regarding in cycle and out cycle elections.
115. Ladies and Gentlemen…. I rest my case!!!
By-elections: the sort of generalised sniping above at postal votes in areas with communities of Asian background isn’t justified by the very specific patterns of abuse that have turned up. In this particular by-election, I gather the community concerned was predominantly Sikh, and I’ve not heard of any allegations about Sikhs in other areas (e.g. nobody suggested dodgy practices in Ealing Southall), nor as I understand it is the Sikh tradition particularly dominated by the head of the family. The local parties aren’t saying that Labour didn’t win the by-election fair and square by good campaigning, and they should know.
113 James regarding your point about Conservatives and their share of local councils.
With 43% of councillors Conservatives are just 7% short of their 1978 peak of 50% and 5% short of Labour’s 1996 peak of 48%. With the change in the size of the liberals/LDs between those periods, 48% maybe a more realistic “peak” that the Conservatives are approaching. That is about 1,200 more Conservative councillors.
That said I think that these results should be viewed as indicators of the likely performances at a parliamentary by election in those areas and have little impact on the national side.
Hain Backs Massive Police Pay Rise
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=679&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=28
On the mayoral race: the Standard detests Livingstone and vice versa, and have been droning on about his for ages, to little apparent effect. They hedged their bets slightly recently with an editorial critical of Boris - essentially said “we don’t like Ken, but Boris isn’t actually saying much to give a reason to vote for him, time he did”.
I agree with sparky at 119 that the media are giving Ken a testing time at the moment and will probably step it up closer to May - partly I think the usual preference for an exciting horse-race rather than a doddle.
Don’t know if someone posted:
“Editorial
Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html
“Editorial
Primary Choices: John McCain”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri2.html
121 - So inspirational that he readily accepts that the government are running scared of the Conservatives!
115. Note to self: Keep deluding myself and ignoring real votes , that is how my party lost Guildford, Newbury and Ludlow.
62- “My natural distrust of the French inclines me to believe the latter.”
Hey, so bashing Americans is bad, but the French, thats fine then?
Mark Senior would have us believe that the 900 seats the Tories won last May was poor result and only gaining another 100 this time would also be poor.
Given the number of seats that are contested this May, there should not be that many losses/gains by any party.
130. Yes. What’s the problem with that?
Detesting the French has got a long currency in this country. We spent 146 years fighting for the place. We nly give up the war because a damn awful Lancastrian married to French Harlot decided was too soft too continue.
After 300 years we went back to fighting them, but Wellington gave them such a hammering, they give up conquest and warfare and went back to things they are good at.
Us brits, not having anyone else too fight started fighting ourselves. Hence football violence.
“You Conservatives keep posting that Labour are deeply unpopular and the voters are waiting for the chance to give them a good kicking , the evidence is that your thinking is false . ”
By-elections do indeed point to Labour unpopularity. Their national equivalent vote share is about 25%. The seats they gain are like the seats the Tories gained in 1996/97, either one offs, or formerly safe seats that were lost in dreadful rounds of elections.
Nick P, what interests me about the London campaign is how ineptly Livingstone’s supporters are campaigning. A lot of former supporters of his (eg Martin Bright, Nick Cohen, Peter Tatchell, Andrew Gilligan) have turned against him, and all his supporters can do in response is (a) accuse them of lining their own pockets (Labour Home) (b) accuse them of being neo-Cons/Zionists (Comment is Free).
Likewise, I think there’s mileage in criticisng Boris as a frivolous candidate. But trying to portray him as some kind of racist fanatic (which is what many of Livingstone’s supporters are doing) just makes the people making those allegations look stupid. It may appeal to the core Labour vote in London, but it certainly doesn’t appeal to floating voters, in particular, the Conservatives who in 2004 voted for Livingstone.
Did anyone notice the the Councillors’ Commission is reccommending STV pilot elections in England and Wales? Reccommendation 21
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/583990
129. Err, I think 121 is a spoof.
As to Clegg’s comments in PMQ, it is always worthwhile, now and again, to wind up what passes for the left of the Labour party by accusing of them of having Tory policies.
131 As I have posted before I expect Labour to gain a small number of seats in May from both Conservatives and LibDems and attemp to spin that as a great result .
137. And with your forecasting record, we should all take careful note.
115: One shouldn’t ignore real votes but one should also not base much on elections with very low turn outs that are often swayed by local not national issues.
Wasnt the last time we fought France in a war around the same time we last fought America?
When it comes to voting systems for Westminster, let’s be realistic here.
It makes tremendous sense to use the same system as the majority of local councils use. I think we’ve gone too far as a country using different voting methods for different elections - Closed List PR for the Euros, STV for local in Scotland and NI assembly, AMS for London, Wales and Scottish devolution, SV for London Mayor… not to mention FPTP for Westminster and councils in England and Wales. with Open List PR being suggested for the new House of Lords we’re giving ourselves one hell of a headache.
Do we want to increase turnout and voter engagement or not? How many voters struggled with their ballot papers in Scotland this year, being asked to mark down preferences for the local elections, one vote for a constituency MSP and one vote for a regional PR topup? Do you realise how hideously complicated this is getting? I don’t *like* the fact that the US only uses FPTP for all their elections, but at least they’re being consistant. One candidate, one vote, every time you step into the polling station. The more complicated it gets the more spoiled ballot papers and the more cries of impropriety, justified or not.
That is why I simply cannot see the point introducing AV for Westminster. Do we really need another voting system in this country? Then there’s the drawbacks of AV, (giving Labour even *more* seats in 1997 and 2001 than they won under FPTP - that’s proportional!) I cannot see how the Lib Dems could support it - it isn’t PR even in the loosest sense of the word. It’s simply an enforced tactical vote, something I think we should move away from in the UK.
If we’re going for simplicity but (more or less) proportionality lets introduce STV to local government in England and Wales *AND* for Westminster elections. We should even perhaps look at converting the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament to this method as well. Then for most elections people know what they have to do on their ballot papers and its much more simplified. And, yes, proportional.
If any party moves towards AV it’s a weasly way of saying the voting system is fairer when it still retains some thoroughly nasty features of FPTP.
136 Indeed.
140: Yes, unless you class Vichy France as France.
140. Yes. More recently, we have instead adopted the foolish expedient of defending them from their own military incompetence. But their undoubted gratitude makes it all worth it.
The Liberal Democrats are a good joke! It never ceases to amase me how one particular poster self congratulates himself and the LD’s on their propensity to win occasional by-elections. Particularly local authorities where the seat in question is pivatol in the tri-polar ideological stakes in cleaning the streets of dog sh*t!!!
:lol: 
Local election results mean very little in isolation and the LD’s have passed the batton on nationally from Skeleton to a pointless calaimity! I mean Nick Clegg makes Gordon Brown look good at PMQ’s!!! 
:lol: 
143. And why shouldn’t you?
persistently understated his rantings………
125. PARIS (Reuters) - Britain’s voting system is open to fraud and makes it “childishly simple” to register bogus voters, Europe’s main human rights body said on Tuesday.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/tm_headline=europe-watchdog-sees-british-voting-system-open-to-fraud&method=full&objectid=20294713&siteid=89520-name_page.html
143- Well I guess we could always count the IRA as American…
148. If you honestly think De Gaulle’s band of merry men represented majority French opinion in the early 1940s you need to read some history.
145: It controlled a different area, was a client regime, and there was a government in exile or sorts.
148: Not logically.