UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[You kip if you want to...]

He did in 2010 as well to be fair. Looks like GB is gonna be playing a fairly big role north of the border as well.

[ChrisDR68]

Labour are about to wheel A. C. L. Blair out again, it seems.

Isn't that a knee ligament?

Although I think he's the best thing that's happened to the Labour Party since Jim Callaghan in the late 70's a very high proportion of Joe Public can't stand him so I doubt it'll help arch opportunist Miliband very much.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just for the record, the last five YouGovs with the most recent listed first:

Labour 33, Con 32, UKIP 15, Greens 8, LDem 7, Others 5
Labour 33, Con 32, UKIP 15, LDem 9, Greens 5, Others 5
Con 34, Labour 33, UKIP 13, Greens 7, LDem 6, Others 7
Labour 33, Con 33, UKIP 14, LDem 7, Greens 7, Others 5
Labour 35, Con 33, UKIP 14, LDem 7, Greens 6, Others 5

Recent polls have also been done by Populus:

Labour 34, Con 31, UKIP 16, LDem 8, Greens 5, Others 6

And Opinium:

Labour 34, Con 32, UKIP 15, Greens 8, LDem 7, Others 4

[Keystone Phil]

When do we think the campaign will actually "kick off?" Mid April? I know you folks consider three weeks a "long" campaign.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Parliament will be dissolved on the 30th of March.

[Thomas D]

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/swing-calculator

How reliable is this? Because I put in the Conservatives winning 34% to Labour's 32, and they still gave Labour 30 more seats. Are the boundaries that unevenly drawn?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's what the Tories would tell you

The issue - the overrepresentation of (tiny) Wales aside - is that Labour's vote is more efficiently distributed.

[You kip if you want to...]

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/swing-calculator

How reliable is this? Because I put in the Conservatives winning 34% to Labour's 32, and they still gave Labour 30 more seats. Are the boundaries that unevenly drawn?

It's not reliable at all. Conventional UNS can't model the UKIP or SNP surges.

Try this if you insist on using a calculator
http://may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/

[Filuwaúrdjan]

People used to argue that conventional UNS could not model the many Liberal surges (or 'surges' as was often the case). And that was true. But also irrelevant. Because as a general indicator of who's likely to form government, you'll find the classic swing method way more reliable than recent flashier models...

[Keystone Phil]

Parliament will be dissolved on the 30th of March.

Oh, that's right. Thank you.

[EPG]

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/swing-calculator

How reliable is this? Because I put in the Conservatives winning 34% to Labour's 32, and they still gave Labour 30 more seats. Are the boundaries that unevenly drawn?

First, turnout and Conservative support are strongly, positively correlated. Conservative safe seats are in high-turnout suburban or rural areas; Labour safe seats are in low-turnout urban cores. More votes doesn't mean more seats (no PR). Second, Conservatives waste more votes than Labour in fighting other parties unsuccessfully. In 2010, about 1 percentage point of the 7-point Conservative-Labour gap was in seats won by Lib Dems, SNP and others. I believe that if one accounts for each of these factors, there is insignificant Labour skew in the map.

[joevsimp]

the problem with UNS this time is that a lot of the Lab/Con marginal seats will have UKIP doing quite well in them, most of the seats in Essex and Kent obviously but most of the marginals will probably have 10-15% UKIP vote

Sunderland Central, which everyone was touting as they key early indicator last time, had ukip on 23% at last years local elections, its not so much that UNS is unreliable, but that the seats that will predict it through the first half of election night aren't reliable indicators of the swing due to an extra unknown variable

[Phony Moderate]

Four U.S. presidential elections have produced electoral college winners who lost the popular vote, remember.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

the problem with UNS this time is that a lot of the Lab/Con marginal seats will have UKIP doing quite well in them, most of the seats in Essex and Kent obviously but most of the marginals will probably have 10-15% UKIP vote

Whereas previously many also had the LibDems doing 'well', but that was different because... what? Reasons?

UNS is trash as an individual seat predictor... but then that was always the case (and the principle behind it was not designed with that in mind anyway).

[Helsinkian]

So let's say that the Tories get 33 percent to Labour's 32 percent, but Labour ends up with more seats... Do you think a scenario like that would lead to increased demands for electoral reform within the Tories?

[DC Al Fine]

So let's say that the Tories get 33 percent to Labour's 32 percent, but Labour ends up with more seats... Do you think a scenario like that would lead to increased demands for electoral reform within the Tories?

I think that would really depend on how permanent the Tories think the situation is. If they think a majority is just around the corner, they won't bother.

[politicus]

So let's say that the Tories get 33 percent to Labour's 32 percent, but Labour ends up with more seats... Do you think a scenario like that would lead to increased demands for electoral reform within the Tories?

I think that would really depend on how permanent the Tories think the situation is. If they think a majority is just around the corner, they won't bother.

Another element is that sticking to FPTP is the conservative option in the UK. 

[EPG]

So let's say that the Tories get 33 percent to Labour's 32 percent, but Labour ends up with more seats... Do you think a scenario like that would lead to increased demands for electoral reform within the Tories?

It's happened before, to both parties; it's just an occupational hazard of their electoral system.

[Lurker]

So let's say that the Tories get 33 percent to Labour's 32 percent, but Labour ends up with more seats... Do you think a scenario like that would lead to increased demands for electoral reform within the Tories?

It's happened before, to both parties; it's just an occupational hazard of their electoral system.

In the past few elections though, the system has strongly benefitted Labour, to a degree I don't think had been seen in a very long time. Just compare the Labour and Tory vote shares in 2005 and 2010 respectively, and what those result got them in seats. In '05, the Conservatives got more votes in England, yet received 92 fewer seats there.

That's why I still have trouble accepting the May2015 model as legitimate, even when taking into SNP and UKIP factors into account.

[EPG]

So let's say that the Tories get 33 percent to Labour's 32 percent, but Labour ends up with more seats... Do you think a scenario like that would lead to increased demands for electoral reform within the Tories?

It's happened before, to both parties; it's just an occupational hazard of their electoral system.

In the past few elections though, the system has strongly benefitted Labour, to a degree I don't think had been seen in a very long time. Just compare the Labour and Tory vote shares in 2005 and 2010 respectively, and what those result got them in seats. In '05, the Conservatives got more votes in England, yet received 92 fewer seats there.

I agree, this is a silly result and it should not have happened, but it is due to the electoral system they have historically favoured as a route to a majority, which they certainly wouldn't have had under a normal PR system. Losers typically lose worse than they ought to, and winners win much more.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Politicus is correct; most Tories are firmly opposed to electoral reform of any kind.

[ChrisDR68]

Politicus is correct; most Tories are firmly opposed to electoral reform of any kind.

Most Labour tribalists (which ultimately is most of the party) are also strongly in favour of FPTP. That voting system skews things towards the big two parties in the UK in a fairly extreme way.

For example in 2010 the Tories and Labour got 36% and 29% of the popular vote respectively. Proportionally that should have won them 234 and 189 seats. With FPTP they actually won 306 and 258 seats.

You can see from just this one example why both parties would change the FPTP system over their dead bodies.

[Gary J]

When the Liberal Party were a major party, they supported first past the post. After 1922 the prominent Liberal, David Lloyd George, was reported to say that if he had known the future he would have strongly supported PR in 1918 and as the Prime Minister he could have made sure that it passed.

Conversely when Labour was a third party it had supported PR, but once it had reached major party status party opinion rapidly changed.

[joevsimp]

So let's say that the Tories get 33 percent to Labour's 32 percent, but Labour ends up with more seats... Do you think a scenario like that would lead to increased demands for electoral reform within the Tories?

I think that would really depend on how permanent the Tories think the situation is. If they think a majority is just around the corner, they won't bother.

Another element is that sticking to FPTP is the conservative option in the UK.  

not necessarily always, this by-election result apparantly brought Churchill out (briefly) in favour of PR, and it was a similar situation in Australia that led to the introduction of AV there, plus a lot of the Conservative party are more of the self interested bent rather than traditionalist

Sheffield Attercliffe by-election, 1909

Party	Candidate	Votes	%	±%
Labour	Joseph Pointer	3,531	27.5	N/A
Conservative	Sydney Charles King-Farlow	3,380	26.2	-20.6
Liberal	Richard Cornthwaite Lambert	3,175	24.6	-28.6
Ind.Cons.	Arnold Muir Wilson	2,803	21.7	N/A

       
Majority    151    1.3    -5.1

[politicus]

So let's say that the Tories get 33 percent to Labour's 32 percent, but Labour ends up with more seats... Do you think a scenario like that would lead to increased demands for electoral reform within the Tories?

I think that would really depend on how permanent the Tories think the situation is. If they think a majority is just around the corner, they won't bother.

Another element is that sticking to FPTP is the conservative option in the UK.  

not necessarily always, this by-election result apparantly brought Churchill out (briefly) in favour of PR, and it was a similar situation in Australia that led to the introduction of AV there, plus a lot of the Conservative party are more of the self interested bent rather than traditionalist

Small c- conservative.