The parliamentary constituencies of Feverford in Kent and Trough in Hertfordshire are not especially well known. But linking these two seats - one Conservative, one Labour - is one astonishing fact, somehow missed in all the acres of coverage about the election. They are represented, with the aid of a false beard, by the same person.
In fact, the election of James Stewart-Blundel (the Conservative) and Jim Blundel (Labour) occurred over 50 years ago and is (of course) a work of fiction. This most strange of political coalitions, two parties embodied in the same person, is contained in the 1953 novel Gentian Violet by Edward Hyams, best read as a commentary on the stifling atmosphere of 1950s consensus politics. For more on political fiction, including toilets and killer robots, try this article, in the latest edition of Total Politics.
Professor Philip Cowley
Showing posts with label Philip Cowley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philip Cowley. Show all posts
Friday, 28 May 2010
Monday, 24 May 2010
Why we need a stronger Electoral Commission
The election may be over – Thirsk and Malton notwithstanding – but the fall out from the polling station queues continues. The Electoral Commission’s Interim Report came out last week. It makes for fascinating – and at times, revealing – reading.
Problems occurred at 27 polling stations, across 16 constituencies. The Commission estimate that they involved at least 1,200 people. As a proportion of the 40,000 polling stations in action during the day (or the 29.6 million people who voted), they are a tiny proportion, but some of the administrative cock-ups found are pretty dire.
Problems occurred at 27 polling stations, across 16 constituencies. The Commission estimate that they involved at least 1,200 people. As a proportion of the 40,000 polling stations in action during the day (or the 29.6 million people who voted), they are a tiny proportion, but some of the administrative cock-ups found are pretty dire.
Monday, 17 May 2010
But what would you call it?
"...if you were going to name the 2010 election, what would you call it?"
The opening book in the ‘Nuffield’ election series – The British General Election of 1945 – lists a series of ‘named’ elections: 1874, when the Liberals went down in a flood of gin and beer; the Midlothian election of 1880; the Khaki election of 1900; the Chinese Slavery election of 1906; the People's Budget election of 1910; the 'Hang the Kaiser' election of 1918; and the 1924 ‘Zinovieff letter’ election.
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Forget the 55% rule. This is what will really limit Parliament
"...the routine defeats of the government by the upper House, and the subsequent negotiation and compromise between the two – could still be seriously limited..."
Leave aside for now the fuss about the 55% rule and its impact on parliament. For all the talk about preventing votes of no confidence from dissolving parliament, defeats on votes of confidence are already extremely rare. The truth is that most votes of confidence are dull affairs, in which all the MPs of each party simply rally to the flag, and the government survives.
Friday, 14 May 2010
What’s 5% between friends?
One of the most striking statements of the last few days was William Hague’s claim that ‘the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May, 2015’. That is, by the way, 7 May. One for the diary, maybe? And it’s all because of this clause in the coalition agreement:
The parties agree to the establishment of five year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.
This has provoked a series of complaints, about being its supposedly undemocratic nature. It would, for example, stop a government defeated by one vote on a vote of confidence, as Callaghan was in 1979, from having to go to the country.
Although it’s not very clear from the coalition agreement, what the scheme is doing is decoupling two concepts: ‘confidence’ and ‘dissolution’. So a government that lost a vote of confidence (like Callaghan’s) would still be expected to resign. But, unlike at present, that would not trigger an (almost) automatic general election. Instead an alternative governing majority would be sought, perhaps under a new Prime Minister, perhaps under a new arrangement of parties. If no alternative could be found, then parties would come together to trigger the 55% dissolution requirement and an election would be held.
One problem that many of those arguing against this have is that fixed term parliaments were a manifesto pledge for both Labour and the Liberal Democrats (though not the Conservatives). And here’s the problem: if you have fixed term parliaments, then you need a mechanism of some sort that prevents the governing party ending them at will. Else, how do you simply stop the government deliberately losing a vote of confidence, and triggering an election, whenever it likes? A fixed term parliament, without some mechanism to stop that sort of manoeuvring, isn’t fixed at all.
But even if you accept that the ideas are worth considering, there are still all sorts of interesting questions:
1. Why 5 years? Most recent UK Parliaments have lasted for four years. Moreover, Scottish, Welsh and London elections are on a four-year cycles, establishing Westminster on a four-year cycle as well – and starting now - would also ensure that they didn’t occur on the same days.
2. Why 55%? If the aim is to stop a party collapsing its own government, then 55% seems very low. Whilst it would work in this particular parliament, in most recent elections (including 1983, 1987, 1997, and 2001) the government would have had enough MPs to trigger the 55% hurdle on their own. The Scottish Parliament, which has a similar scheme, has a 66% hurdle, and that would be more significant.
3. How is this to be embedded? It is not clear what this ‘binding’ resolution is. Westminster doesn’t have binding resolutions, or laws. What is to stop a government – with a majority, but not 55% - simply repealing the bill establishing fixed parliaments, and then triggering an election? It might look a bit shifty, but it could always be justified in the ‘good of the country’ or something similar.
4. Did anyone consult the Queen about this, since formally dissolution is in the hands of the Monarch?
5. And what effect will this have on party discipline? Before, governments always had recourse to making an issue a vote of confidence, which would make all but the most recalcitrant MPs come back into line, for fear of triggering an election. Under the proposed scheme, losing a vote of confidence might bring down the administration, but as long as it could muster 55% it wouldn’t need to go to the country.
These are interesting times to be studying the constitution; they might also be interesting times to be studying party discipline.
Professor Philip Cowley
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Oh dear...
"It turns out to be all leaflets and trudging and stubby pencils..."
Anyone who doesn’t enjoy politics would be well advised to avoid today’s papers. Not only is there the masses of detailed analysis of the election results that always follows an election – loads of wonderful pie charts, tables, and multi-coloured maps – but there’s also story after story about hung parliament discussions and possibilities.
I would, though, recommend one piece in particular: Suzanne Moore’s column in the Mail on Sunday. Moore stood as a candidate at this election, in Hackney North and Stoke Newington. She is a little coy about her performance (she got 285 votes, or 0.6%), but the piece is worth reading for the insights that standing gave her about politics:
Perhaps all columnists in major papers – especially those who frequently pontificate about the political process – should be made to go through a similar experience, so that they understand what it is that they write about.
And yes, the same would apply to politics academics.
Professor Philip Cowley
Anyone who doesn’t enjoy politics would be well advised to avoid today’s papers. Not only is there the masses of detailed analysis of the election results that always follows an election – loads of wonderful pie charts, tables, and multi-coloured maps – but there’s also story after story about hung parliament discussions and possibilities.
I would, though, recommend one piece in particular: Suzanne Moore’s column in the Mail on Sunday. Moore stood as a candidate at this election, in Hackney North and Stoke Newington. She is a little coy about her performance (she got 285 votes, or 0.6%), but the piece is worth reading for the insights that standing gave her about politics:
To which, the only response is: welcome to politics.It is easy enough to watch The Thick of It and read spin-doctors’ diaries and look at blogs and imagine endless sophisticated strategising. It turns out to be all leaflets and trudging and stubby pencils and rows of people counting paper under strip lighting. It’s not about grand policy statements but listening to people rant about parking. Or the arms trade. Or their burst pipes. Or their rents. Or Afghanistan. Politicians, I now realised, over-promise because somehow punters ask them.
Perhaps all columnists in major papers – especially those who frequently pontificate about the political process – should be made to go through a similar experience, so that they understand what it is that they write about.
And yes, the same would apply to politics academics.
Professor Philip Cowley
Saturday, 8 May 2010
Despite expenses, incumbent MPs do well
One of the most intriguing – and unexpected - features of Thursday’s election was the relative success of local, incumbent, MPs. The BBC/ITN/Sky exit poll found that in Labour held seats with new candidates, the Con-Lab swing was 7.5%. But in seats with incumbents, the swing was just 4%. The former would have been enough to win a majority for the Conservatives.
The latter was not. In other words, all the work put in by the much maligned incumbent members of the Parliamentary Labour Party over the last few years in their constituencies – holding surgeries, answering letters, dealing with constituents’ problems and so on – may have been enough to prevent a Conservative majority.
Of the top 100 Conservative targets, there were just nine Labour-held seats which the Conservatives did not take. Of these nine, eight were held by incumbent MPs.
You can see this in seats close to the University of Nottingham, where one popular hardworking local MP, Vernon Coaker, survived, despite holding exactly the sort of seat that the Conservatives were winning elsewhere. And in Broxtowe, right next door to the University, another equally hard working and popular local MP, Nick Palmer, almost hung on, limiting the Lab-Con swing to just 2.6%, and losing by a mere 389 votes.
Of course, there can be other factors involved. Lots of these target seats had relatively large non-white populations, for example, and there is some evidence that those types of seats also performed better for Labour.
What’s surprising, though, is that there is any effect at all. A growing incumbency factor has been building up in recent elections, but most people suspected that the expenses scandal would counter-act that this time – that this may be the very worst election to be an incumbent, and the best to be a challenger. Not so. It may be that with many of the ‘worst’ expenses offenders gone, expenses was nullified as an issue – and that those remaining MPs were able to dig in.
Professor Philip Cowley
The latter was not. In other words, all the work put in by the much maligned incumbent members of the Parliamentary Labour Party over the last few years in their constituencies – holding surgeries, answering letters, dealing with constituents’ problems and so on – may have been enough to prevent a Conservative majority.
Of the top 100 Conservative targets, there were just nine Labour-held seats which the Conservatives did not take. Of these nine, eight were held by incumbent MPs.
You can see this in seats close to the University of Nottingham, where one popular hardworking local MP, Vernon Coaker, survived, despite holding exactly the sort of seat that the Conservatives were winning elsewhere. And in Broxtowe, right next door to the University, another equally hard working and popular local MP, Nick Palmer, almost hung on, limiting the Lab-Con swing to just 2.6%, and losing by a mere 389 votes.
Of course, there can be other factors involved. Lots of these target seats had relatively large non-white populations, for example, and there is some evidence that those types of seats also performed better for Labour.
What’s surprising, though, is that there is any effect at all. A growing incumbency factor has been building up in recent elections, but most people suspected that the expenses scandal would counter-act that this time – that this may be the very worst election to be an incumbent, and the best to be a challenger. Not so. It may be that with many of the ‘worst’ expenses offenders gone, expenses was nullified as an issue – and that those remaining MPs were able to dig in.
Professor Philip Cowley
Localised elections, localised incompetence
“An Englishman, even if he is alone”, said George Mikes, “forms an orderly queue of one.” Some of Thursday night’s queues to vote appear to have been a bit less than orderly. Of all the claims made about the problems at polling stations, the most ludicrous is that poor electoral administration prevented a higher turnout.
Obviously this is literally true, but to secure a rise of just one percentage point in turnout requires more than 400,000 extra voters. Nothing in the reports so far indicates that we are talking about that many people; I’ll be surprised if the numbers proved to have been ‘denied’ their vote even hit 4,000, if that. That would represent a rise of 0.01% in the turnout.
The second bizarre claim is that the problems were caused by a ‘surge’ in turnout. There was no surge. Estimates of turnout put it at about 65%, just four percentage points up on what it had been in 2005. This is a lower turnout than in the 75 years at every election between 1922 and 1997.
We managed then without turning people away; competent electoral administrators should have been able to manage yesterday. The problems seen are on Thursday are much more to do with localised incompetence -- and penny pinching by councils – than any great surge in voting.
No doubt the Electoral Commission will get it in the neck for this. If there’s a national commission dealing with elections, then it’s inevitable that that is where the finger will point. Yet although the Commission provides oversight, much of the delivery of elections is decentralised, run by local councils – and it’s here that the problems appear to have been.
Here’s the interesting thing: one of the big ideas in British politics is that of localism, decentralisation, the idea that the centre shouldn’t always run things. That’s exactly how the UK runs its elections. And whilst most councils run elections very well, others don’t. What you saw on Thursday was localism in action, for good or ill.
UPDATE: A comment below makes the point that the population has grown in recent years. True, and in total more people voted on Thursday than in elections up until the 1970s. But at the same time, we now have much more widely available postal voting – 15% voted by post during the last election, most people think the figure will be higher this time – and so the footfall in polling stations on the day will still be less now than in almost all post-war elections. (Without knowing the precise number of postal votes, it’s difficult to say, but even if the rate stays the same as in 2005, I estimate you have to go back to 1945 before you find fewer people passing through polling stations on the day). Also, polling stations now stay open for longer (it used to be until 9pm, now it’s 10pm), so there’s even less excuse.
More importantly, I wasn’t arguing that this was unimportant, and that people shouldn’t be annoyed. Merely that, when blame is being apportioned, it should go where it is deserved – those councils that cocked-up – and not where it doesn’t. This is localised incompetence, and we should deal with it on that basis.
Professor Philip Cowley
Obviously this is literally true, but to secure a rise of just one percentage point in turnout requires more than 400,000 extra voters. Nothing in the reports so far indicates that we are talking about that many people; I’ll be surprised if the numbers proved to have been ‘denied’ their vote even hit 4,000, if that. That would represent a rise of 0.01% in the turnout.
The second bizarre claim is that the problems were caused by a ‘surge’ in turnout. There was no surge. Estimates of turnout put it at about 65%, just four percentage points up on what it had been in 2005. This is a lower turnout than in the 75 years at every election between 1922 and 1997.
We managed then without turning people away; competent electoral administrators should have been able to manage yesterday. The problems seen are on Thursday are much more to do with localised incompetence -- and penny pinching by councils – than any great surge in voting.
No doubt the Electoral Commission will get it in the neck for this. If there’s a national commission dealing with elections, then it’s inevitable that that is where the finger will point. Yet although the Commission provides oversight, much of the delivery of elections is decentralised, run by local councils – and it’s here that the problems appear to have been.
Here’s the interesting thing: one of the big ideas in British politics is that of localism, decentralisation, the idea that the centre shouldn’t always run things. That’s exactly how the UK runs its elections. And whilst most councils run elections very well, others don’t. What you saw on Thursday was localism in action, for good or ill.
UPDATE: A comment below makes the point that the population has grown in recent years. True, and in total more people voted on Thursday than in elections up until the 1970s. But at the same time, we now have much more widely available postal voting – 15% voted by post during the last election, most people think the figure will be higher this time – and so the footfall in polling stations on the day will still be less now than in almost all post-war elections. (Without knowing the precise number of postal votes, it’s difficult to say, but even if the rate stays the same as in 2005, I estimate you have to go back to 1945 before you find fewer people passing through polling stations on the day). Also, polling stations now stay open for longer (it used to be until 9pm, now it’s 10pm), so there’s even less excuse.
More importantly, I wasn’t arguing that this was unimportant, and that people shouldn’t be annoyed. Merely that, when blame is being apportioned, it should go where it is deserved – those councils that cocked-up – and not where it doesn’t. This is localised incompetence, and we should deal with it on that basis.
Professor Philip Cowley
Thursday, 6 May 2010
Philip Cowley - reactions to results
The BBC/ITN/Sky exit poll shows no one party with enough seats to form a majority. The Conservatives have done well, putting on almost 100 seats, but not well enough. But - if the exit poll is right - there are also not enough Labour and Lib Dem MPs to form a coalition majority either. Most importantly, however, the poll shows things to be on a knife-edge, and close enough so that any strange results could tip the balance. It promises to be one of the most exciting election nights in living memory.
12:05am
The first three seats - the three Sunderland seats - have seen turnout rise by about 5 percentage points. If that is repeated across the country, overall turnout will remain below 70%. However, it is perfectly possible that turnout will be more variable, and the increase will be greater elsewhere.
Professor Philip Cowley
12:05am
The first three seats - the three Sunderland seats - have seen turnout rise by about 5 percentage points. If that is repeated across the country, overall turnout will remain below 70%. However, it is perfectly possible that turnout will be more variable, and the increase will be greater elsewhere.
Professor Philip Cowley
What counts as a majority?
In all the pre-election discussion, much attention focuses on the number 326. It’s half of 650 (which is the number of seats in the new House of Commons), plus one. And anyone who reaches 326 is therefore guaranteed of a majority in the Commons.
But there’s good reason to be sceptical about 326 being the target number.
For one thing, the election in Thirsk and Malton is not taking place today – because of the death of the UKIP candidate. It is, or should be, a safe Tory seat. But until it actually counts, who knows? (I mean, who knows what it would be like were it be contested in by-election-like conditions, as the difference between a hung parliament and a Conservative government?). As of today, 649 seats are up for grabs.
Then there’s Sinn Fein MPs, who don’t take their seats. At present, there are five of those. If we assume they hold all five seats, and make no gains, that makes 644 seats actually up for grabs. (It’d be one of the ironies of a really close election that Sinn Fein gains would actually be good for David Cameron...)
And then there’s the Speaker and three Deputy Speakers, who don’t vote (except in tied votes). Assuming John Bercow is returned in Buckingham and continues as Speaker. That leaves three Deputy Speakers, two of whom have retired. Assuming the one remaining Deputy Speaker, the Conservative Alan Haselhurst holds his seat and continues in office, that leaves two to be filled. The Conservatives could attempt to argue that both have to be from the ranks of the Opposition (given that there is normally parity across the four, and that both Haselhurst and Bercow represent Conservative seats, albeit formerly in the case of the latter). That effectively reduces the number of seats in play by another one.
That makes 642, rather than 650. And means a majority of 322 would provide David Cameron with a majority, at least until the end of the month. And figure of 323 would mean he had a majority whatever happens in Thirsk.
In practice, on day-to-day business there’s also the fact that the other Northern Irish MPs often have lowish turnouts in Commons votes, which could also bump up his majority by a handful.
These sort of minor details often go unnoticed. But in an election which is going to be this close, every seat could matter.
Professor Philip Cowley
But there’s good reason to be sceptical about 326 being the target number.
For one thing, the election in Thirsk and Malton is not taking place today – because of the death of the UKIP candidate. It is, or should be, a safe Tory seat. But until it actually counts, who knows? (I mean, who knows what it would be like were it be contested in by-election-like conditions, as the difference between a hung parliament and a Conservative government?). As of today, 649 seats are up for grabs.
Then there’s Sinn Fein MPs, who don’t take their seats. At present, there are five of those. If we assume they hold all five seats, and make no gains, that makes 644 seats actually up for grabs. (It’d be one of the ironies of a really close election that Sinn Fein gains would actually be good for David Cameron...)
And then there’s the Speaker and three Deputy Speakers, who don’t vote (except in tied votes). Assuming John Bercow is returned in Buckingham and continues as Speaker. That leaves three Deputy Speakers, two of whom have retired. Assuming the one remaining Deputy Speaker, the Conservative Alan Haselhurst holds his seat and continues in office, that leaves two to be filled. The Conservatives could attempt to argue that both have to be from the ranks of the Opposition (given that there is normally parity across the four, and that both Haselhurst and Bercow represent Conservative seats, albeit formerly in the case of the latter). That effectively reduces the number of seats in play by another one.
That makes 642, rather than 650. And means a majority of 322 would provide David Cameron with a majority, at least until the end of the month. And figure of 323 would mean he had a majority whatever happens in Thirsk.
In practice, on day-to-day business there’s also the fact that the other Northern Irish MPs often have lowish turnouts in Commons votes, which could also bump up his majority by a handful.
These sort of minor details often go unnoticed. But in an election which is going to be this close, every seat could matter.
Professor Philip Cowley
A cautionary note about penultimate polls
"Nothing about a trend ensures its continuation – but beware..."We’ve had a massive nine opinion polls, on the eve of the election. That’s almost double the number we had in 2005.
The Conservative lead varies from four points (TNS BMRB) to 12 (Angus Reid), although the shares of the votes being predicted for each of the three parties are more stable.
The Conservatives shares range from 33-37, although all but one are 36+/-1.
The Labour shares ranges from 24-29, although all but one are 28+/-1.
And the Lib Dem shares range from 26-29, although all but two are 28+/-1.
None of these polls – assuming a uniform national swing – would give the Conservatives a majority of seats, although they’d be pretty close on some. We suspect anyway, that there won’t be a uniform swing, and all the indications are that the Conservatives are doing better in the Con-Lab marginals they need to win. But maybe not by quite enough to win outright.
But here’s a trivia question. In the last four elections, there have been a total of 21 similar polls. How many have under-stated the Labour vote? Answer: just one.
At the last election, four of the polling companies over-stated Labour’s performance, whilst one, NOP, got it spot on. In 2001, all six over-stated Labour’s performance, as did five companies in 1992. In 1997, four companies over-stated Labour’s share of the vote. Just one, ICM in 1997, has a polling company under-stated Labour’s eventual performance. Nothing about a trend ensures its continuation – but beware...
The BBC/ITN exit poll will be out at 10pm.
Professor Philip Cowley
Would a hung parliament be bad for business?
According to an online survey - run by The University of Nottingham Institute for Enterprise and Innovation (UNIEI) - businesses are worried about the potential impact of an inconclusive election, according to an online survey.
A survey suggests a majority of smaller business owners feel that a hung parliament would be bad for the economic situation.
The quarterly UK Business Barometer found that those who were pessimistic about the situation following a hung parliament outnumbered the optimists by three to one. Out of more than 100 respondents, almost 55 per cent felt a hung parliament would worsen economic prospects ‘somewhat’ or ‘greatly’, compared with 18 per cent who thought it would improve the economic situation.
In a parallel survey, the UK Business Adviser Barometer, the split was even more pronounced. Among more than 180 business advisers questioned, 59 per cent felt economic prospects would worsen if there was no outright winner on May 7th, compared with 13 per cent who felt they would improve.
Professor Philip Cowley said; “In comparative terms, there's nothing for business to worry about with a hung parliament or a coalition. There's no evidence that economic performance is any worse in political systems that have hung parliaments, or coalitions.
“Indeed, in the past advocates of proportional representation always used to argue that one reason for Britain's relatively poor economic performance in the 1970s was that we had single party government – and thus saw regular u-turns in key policies – compared to countries such as Germany which had coalition government and were thus more stable. The extended periods of one-party government that we have seen in the UK since 1979 (first under the Conservatives, then under Labour) mean that we hear that argument rather less these days.
“The fear for business is not so much the hung parliament itself, but the reaction of the parties to it. What businesses (especially in the City) fear, is a government unable to take difficult decisions, a period of drift and indecision, caused either by a party trying to govern in a minority administration (and thus looking ahead to a second election) or an unstable coalition. But a stable coalition could be as able to take difficult economic decisions as a single party government.
“It is therefore the reaction of the parties to the result, rather than the result itself which is the problem.
“Moreover, there is a problem in seeing this issue as a clear divide between a government with a majority or one without. A Conservative majority of, say, 10 will not in practice be very different to a Conservative minority government, short of a majority by 10. Neither would be especially stable. A small Conservative majority will be easily hit by backbench rebellions – as happened the last time the Conservatives were in power with a small majority.”
The UKBB and UKBAB surveys, which are completed online, assess current business conditions through a series of topical questions aimed at smaller businesses. The questions change each time the surveys are circulated.
The surveys assess current business conditions through a series of topical questions aimed at smaller businesses and their advisers. The surveys are issued bi-monthly and more information, including results and analyses, can be found on the web at www.ukbb.ac and www.ukbab.ac. Businesses and advisers wishing to contribute as panellists on the project should visit the appropriate barometer website to register.
A survey suggests a majority of smaller business owners feel that a hung parliament would be bad for the economic situation.
The quarterly UK Business Barometer found that those who were pessimistic about the situation following a hung parliament outnumbered the optimists by three to one. Out of more than 100 respondents, almost 55 per cent felt a hung parliament would worsen economic prospects ‘somewhat’ or ‘greatly’, compared with 18 per cent who thought it would improve the economic situation.
In a parallel survey, the UK Business Adviser Barometer, the split was even more pronounced. Among more than 180 business advisers questioned, 59 per cent felt economic prospects would worsen if there was no outright winner on May 7th, compared with 13 per cent who felt they would improve.
Professor Philip Cowley said; “In comparative terms, there's nothing for business to worry about with a hung parliament or a coalition. There's no evidence that economic performance is any worse in political systems that have hung parliaments, or coalitions.
“Indeed, in the past advocates of proportional representation always used to argue that one reason for Britain's relatively poor economic performance in the 1970s was that we had single party government – and thus saw regular u-turns in key policies – compared to countries such as Germany which had coalition government and were thus more stable. The extended periods of one-party government that we have seen in the UK since 1979 (first under the Conservatives, then under Labour) mean that we hear that argument rather less these days.
“The fear for business is not so much the hung parliament itself, but the reaction of the parties to it. What businesses (especially in the City) fear, is a government unable to take difficult decisions, a period of drift and indecision, caused either by a party trying to govern in a minority administration (and thus looking ahead to a second election) or an unstable coalition. But a stable coalition could be as able to take difficult economic decisions as a single party government.
“It is therefore the reaction of the parties to the result, rather than the result itself which is the problem.
“Moreover, there is a problem in seeing this issue as a clear divide between a government with a majority or one without. A Conservative majority of, say, 10 will not in practice be very different to a Conservative minority government, short of a majority by 10. Neither would be especially stable. A small Conservative majority will be easily hit by backbench rebellions – as happened the last time the Conservatives were in power with a small majority.”
The UKBB and UKBAB surveys, which are completed online, assess current business conditions through a series of topical questions aimed at smaller businesses. The questions change each time the surveys are circulated.
The surveys assess current business conditions through a series of topical questions aimed at smaller businesses and their advisers. The surveys are issued bi-monthly and more information, including results and analyses, can be found on the web at www.ukbb.ac and www.ukbab.ac. Businesses and advisers wishing to contribute as panellists on the project should visit the appropriate barometer website to register.
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Looking both ways at once
Last week, we pointed out the interesting finding lurking in a ComRes poll, which showed that on one of the central dividing lines of this election, the public appeared to have contradictory views.
Some 61% wanted the Government to “maintain current public spending plans in order to keep the recovery going”, whilst 57% wanted them to “cut public spending now to avoid higher taxes later”. The public seemed to want both of two completely contradictory stances.
Amusing (or depressing?) as it was, of course, this didn’t tell you how many of the public held such contradictory views, merely that the ‘public’, in the aggregate, did. Thanks to Andrew Hawkins of ComRes, however, who has now supplied some more detailed data, we can identify Britain’s confused voters in a bit more detail.
First, there’s a handful of respondents who refused to answer one or both of the questions, along with 15% of the sample who said that they didn’t know to one or either option.
That leaves four more substantive groups. There were those who a) wanted spending maintained and not cut (26%), and there were those who b) wanted spending cut and not maintained (21%). That makes 47% of the survey who took a logically consistent position.
But a full 31% of the sample came out in favour of both options. That is, they wanted spending both cut and maintained. That is more than came out for either a) or b).
There was also some 7% who rejected both options. In itself, this isn’t illogical (and certainly not as illogical as wanting both options). I might reject both options because in fact I favour increasing spending, an option that wasn’t provided.
Or I could favour maintaining spending but not ‘in order to keep the recovery going’, but for some other reason. Similarly, I might want a cut in public spending, but not ‘to avoid higher taxes later’. So we should assume some of those 7% are answering logically.
Equally, however, we suspect that some are just inconsistent. With no other way of dividing them, let’s split them 50/50.
That makes roughly 50% - just half – of voters who gave consistent answers to those two questions, whilst 35% - or more than a third – who gave inconsistent answers. And remember: this was hardly some minor, trivial, issue, but one of the key dividing lines between the two main parties.
Who’d be a politician faced with voters like that?
Professor Philip Cowley
Some 61% wanted the Government to “maintain current public spending plans in order to keep the recovery going”, whilst 57% wanted them to “cut public spending now to avoid higher taxes later”. The public seemed to want both of two completely contradictory stances.
Amusing (or depressing?) as it was, of course, this didn’t tell you how many of the public held such contradictory views, merely that the ‘public’, in the aggregate, did. Thanks to Andrew Hawkins of ComRes, however, who has now supplied some more detailed data, we can identify Britain’s confused voters in a bit more detail.
First, there’s a handful of respondents who refused to answer one or both of the questions, along with 15% of the sample who said that they didn’t know to one or either option.
That leaves four more substantive groups. There were those who a) wanted spending maintained and not cut (26%), and there were those who b) wanted spending cut and not maintained (21%). That makes 47% of the survey who took a logically consistent position.
But a full 31% of the sample came out in favour of both options. That is, they wanted spending both cut and maintained. That is more than came out for either a) or b).
There was also some 7% who rejected both options. In itself, this isn’t illogical (and certainly not as illogical as wanting both options). I might reject both options because in fact I favour increasing spending, an option that wasn’t provided.
Or I could favour maintaining spending but not ‘in order to keep the recovery going’, but for some other reason. Similarly, I might want a cut in public spending, but not ‘to avoid higher taxes later’. So we should assume some of those 7% are answering logically.
Equally, however, we suspect that some are just inconsistent. With no other way of dividing them, let’s split them 50/50.
That makes roughly 50% - just half – of voters who gave consistent answers to those two questions, whilst 35% - or more than a third – who gave inconsistent answers. And remember: this was hardly some minor, trivial, issue, but one of the key dividing lines between the two main parties.
Who’d be a politician faced with voters like that?
Professor Philip Cowley
Monday, 3 May 2010
Philip Cowley in Reuters debate on hung parliaments
Sound quality is iffy for for the first few seconds - bear with it!
Watch live streaming video from ilicco at livestream.com
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Trust the people?
"As Andrew Hawkins of ComRes noted in his commentary, ‘clearly a lot of people are very confused......’"
Sunday’s ComRes poll for the Independent on Sunday/Sunday Mirror contained two questions designed to tap into one of the central dividing lines of the election – what to do about public spending. Its findings are very revealing.
First, they asked this: “The Government should maintain current public spending plans in order to keep the recovery going”
Agree: 61%
Disagree 29%
Perhaps not surprisingly, younger people and those in poorer social groups were most likely to agree. Good news for Labour, you might think, given that this is their stance, and they appear to have almost two thirds of the public behind them.
But then they asked this: “The Government should cut public spending now to avoid higher taxes later”.
Agree 57%
Disagree 34%
As with the previous question, younger people and those in poorer social groups were the most likely to agree.
These are two totally contradictory stances – and yet the public want both of them. They want public spending both maintained and cut.
As Andrew Hawkins of ComRes noted in his commentary, ‘clearly a lot of people are very confused......’
Professor Philip Cowley
Monday, 26 April 2010
Pick and Mix
With less than a fortnight to go, here are some of the highlights of the blog over the last two weeks:
The manifestos compared – can you guess which one talks about chaos more?
Why the ippr don’t get the BNP – and why the BNP targets Islam.
Why Newnight Review don’t understand political fiction
How the polls aren’t really moving as much as you think
Why you should be sceptical about all the talk of this being an internet election
Plus:
Labour’s secret weapon: the World Cup
The benefits of attack ads
Gordon sings a song
And how to lose a TV debate, even if your opponent has punched a child in the face.
Professor Philip Cowley
The manifestos compared – can you guess which one talks about chaos more?
Why the ippr don’t get the BNP – and why the BNP targets Islam.
Why Newnight Review don’t understand political fiction
How the polls aren’t really moving as much as you think
Why you should be sceptical about all the talk of this being an internet election
Plus:
Labour’s secret weapon: the World Cup
The benefits of attack ads
Gordon sings a song
And how to lose a TV debate, even if your opponent has punched a child in the face.
Professor Philip Cowley
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Polls stability again (well, sort of)
Again, the polls appear to be all over the place. Last night’s ComRes poll had the Conservatives in front by nine points, Populus by just one. You Gov had the Lib Dems ahead by three, Angus Reid had them ahead by just one. Lib Dem support had either ‘burst’ (ComRes had them back to 26%, albeit a level of support that many Lib Dems would have sold their souls for just a week ago) or was at its highest level (34%, with YouGov).
There’s no doubt that there’s some fluctuations. But, as with the pre-debate polls, there’s also some real continuity, once you take into account the margin of error you get from sampling.
The Conservative vote is the most stable of all. Since the Lib Dem surge, every poll has put the Conservatives on 33+/-2.
With one exception – yesterday’s Angus Reid poll – every poll has put Labour on 27+/-3.
And with two exceptions – yesterday’s ComRes and YouGov polls – poll survey has put the Lib Dems on 30+/-3.
And remember that each polling company conducts their surveys differently – different ways of doing fieldwork, and then (even more importantly) different ways of weighting and filtering the data – and so we should expect to see variation between companies.
If however we look at the spreads by companies, then we see even more stability. Excluding those organisations which have only done one poll since the Lib Dem surge:
ComRes have: Con: 33+/-2; Lab: 27+/-1; LD: 28+/-2.
YouGov have: Con: 32+/-1; Lab: 28+/-2; LD: 32+/-3.
Angus Reid have: Con: 32+/-0; Lab: 24+/-1; LD: 33+/-1.
ICM have: Con: 34+/-1; Lab: 20+/-1; LD: 29+/-2.
In other words, within polling companies, not a single poll has seen movement outside the margin of error, and the Conservative and Labour spreads are even more stable, the majority being just +/-1.
One other thing. The +/-3 margin of error is 95% accurate, but that means that one in every 20 polls will show variations beyond it. The phrase rogue polls is used wildly – as Mike Smithson of politicalbetting.com often says “a rogue poll is one whose results you disagree with” – but it technically refers just to those 5% of polls.
We are now seeing so many polls – 16 since the debates alone – that we should expect about one poll every five or six days to be a rogue.
UPDATE: This piece was written before the publication of today's Ipsos-MORI poll, but that merely confirms the argument above, with the poll nestling nicely near the mid-points, at 32/28/32.
Professor Philip Cowley
There’s no doubt that there’s some fluctuations. But, as with the pre-debate polls, there’s also some real continuity, once you take into account the margin of error you get from sampling.
The Conservative vote is the most stable of all. Since the Lib Dem surge, every poll has put the Conservatives on 33+/-2.
With one exception – yesterday’s Angus Reid poll – every poll has put Labour on 27+/-3.
And with two exceptions – yesterday’s ComRes and YouGov polls – poll survey has put the Lib Dems on 30+/-3.
And remember that each polling company conducts their surveys differently – different ways of doing fieldwork, and then (even more importantly) different ways of weighting and filtering the data – and so we should expect to see variation between companies.
If however we look at the spreads by companies, then we see even more stability. Excluding those organisations which have only done one poll since the Lib Dem surge:
ComRes have: Con: 33+/-2; Lab: 27+/-1; LD: 28+/-2.
YouGov have: Con: 32+/-1; Lab: 28+/-2; LD: 32+/-3.
Angus Reid have: Con: 32+/-0; Lab: 24+/-1; LD: 33+/-1.
ICM have: Con: 34+/-1; Lab: 20+/-1; LD: 29+/-2.
In other words, within polling companies, not a single poll has seen movement outside the margin of error, and the Conservative and Labour spreads are even more stable, the majority being just +/-1.
One other thing. The +/-3 margin of error is 95% accurate, but that means that one in every 20 polls will show variations beyond it. The phrase rogue polls is used wildly – as Mike Smithson of politicalbetting.com often says “a rogue poll is one whose results you disagree with” – but it technically refers just to those 5% of polls.
We are now seeing so many polls – 16 since the debates alone – that we should expect about one poll every five or six days to be a rogue.
UPDATE: This piece was written before the publication of today's Ipsos-MORI poll, but that merely confirms the argument above, with the poll nestling nicely near the mid-points, at 32/28/32.
Professor Philip Cowley
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Multiple polling days
"Postal votes will be landing on doormats soon. They could well be doing so when the Lib Dems are enjoying their best election campaign ever..."A couple of months ago, I was chatting to a party strategist, and asked what he thought had done most to change the nature of British elections in recent years. His answer: postal voting.
Or more accurately, the increased amount of it, following the Representation of the People Act 2000, which allowed for postal voting on demand. Since then, the amount of postal voting has increased election-on-election, to the point where around 15% of the votes cast in 2005 were postal votes.
A paper published in the British Journal of Politics and International Relations (sub required, unfortunately) by Rallings et al argues that, for all the hooha, postal voting had relatively little impact on either turnout or party support at the last election.
But the reason that the strategist argued postal voting altered British elections was because they changed the focus and the structure, even if not necessarily the outcome.
Prior to the 2000 Act, everything the parties did built towards polling day. Whilst most things still build towards polling day, parties now also need to be aware of the significant chunk of voters who will be casting their votes before then. Widespread postal voting effectively creates multiple polling dates.
Postal votes will be landing on doormats soon. They could well be doing so when the Lib Dems are enjoying their best election campaign ever. Even if the Lib Dem surge subsides and Labour manages to pull back some of its support by the traditional polling day, a good chunk of voters will have cast their votes at the point when Labour were in third place.
UPDATE: Writing it, I thought 'I can't believe I'm the only person to think about this'. And then I saw this from the excellent UK Polling Report, which proved that I wasn't. Great minds, etc.
Professor Philip Cowley
Monday, 19 April 2010
Life’s not fair, son
"Would the Lib Dems prop up a government that had come third in the popular vote? Now, there’s a question many of us didn’t think we’d be asking when this campaign began..."
Three things have changed as a result of the Lib Dems poll surge following Thursday’s debate. Two are (fairly) obvious, the third less so.
Starting with the most obvious: the Lib Dem vote has increased dramatically. Today’s YouGov poll for the Sun puts them on 33. The last YouGov poll before the debate had them on 22. In other words, the party has increased its support by 50% in the space of just four days.
Today’s poll puts them in the lead, as did a bpix poll on Sunday. We’ve seen third party surges before, but not this close to a general election. No one knows whether the Lib Dems will manage to sustain this level of support, or whether it will fade (or even increase yet further). Anyone who does tell you they know is fibbing, for we are in unchartered waters here.
Second, and as a result, both the other two parties have lost support. Prior to the debates, every opinion poll during the campaign put the Conservatives on 38+/-3, every poll put Labour on 30+/-3. That is no longer true. The Conservatives have been on 31 in two of the post-debate polls. Labour have dropped as low as 26. The two-party share of the vote in today’s poll – in what used to be seen as the archetypical two-party system – is just 58%.
The third consequence is the least obvious. When I was growing up, and used to complain that something wasn’t fair, my Dad would reply: life’s not fair, son. That applies in spade to the British electoral system. Projections of seats from votes should always be treated with caution – especially now – but most projections of seats based on recent polls would put Labour third in votes but first in seats. And the Lib Dems, first in votes, would come third in seats.
Prior to the debates, whilst most polls pointed to a hung parliament it was one in which the Conservatives would most likely have emerged with most seats. No longer. On most projections from the post-debate polls (and the precise details differ depending how you make that projection), we will have a hung parliament but with Labour as the largest party in terms of seats. And that is the real game changer from Thursday.
If they can push on, and increase support, then the Lib Dems might break through this barrier, and begin to be properly rewarded in seats. But they need around 37/38% to become the largest single party, and around the 40% mark to form a majority. And short of that, the Lib Dem surge hurts the Conservatives more than it hurts Labour.
This does, however, pose a problem for Nick Clegg. The Lib Dem position is that, in the event of a hung parliament, they are prepared to reach agreement with whichever party has the most obvious ‘mandate’ from the voters.
Nick Clegg, has, however always been very careful not to specify whether mandate means votes or seats, arguing that this is a hypothetical discussion, the sort of thing that nerdy academics worry about but which didn’t worry normal folk much.
In fact, it has always been a real possibility that Labour might emerge with more seats but with fewer votes. And on today’s poll is looks even less hypothetical.
Would the Lib Dems prop up a government that had come third in the popular vote? Now, there’s a question many of us didn’t think we’d be asking when this campaign began.
Professor Philip Cowley
Three things have changed as a result of the Lib Dems poll surge following Thursday’s debate. Two are (fairly) obvious, the third less so.
Starting with the most obvious: the Lib Dem vote has increased dramatically. Today’s YouGov poll for the Sun puts them on 33. The last YouGov poll before the debate had them on 22. In other words, the party has increased its support by 50% in the space of just four days.
Today’s poll puts them in the lead, as did a bpix poll on Sunday. We’ve seen third party surges before, but not this close to a general election. No one knows whether the Lib Dems will manage to sustain this level of support, or whether it will fade (or even increase yet further). Anyone who does tell you they know is fibbing, for we are in unchartered waters here.
Second, and as a result, both the other two parties have lost support. Prior to the debates, every opinion poll during the campaign put the Conservatives on 38+/-3, every poll put Labour on 30+/-3. That is no longer true. The Conservatives have been on 31 in two of the post-debate polls. Labour have dropped as low as 26. The two-party share of the vote in today’s poll – in what used to be seen as the archetypical two-party system – is just 58%.
The third consequence is the least obvious. When I was growing up, and used to complain that something wasn’t fair, my Dad would reply: life’s not fair, son. That applies in spade to the British electoral system. Projections of seats from votes should always be treated with caution – especially now – but most projections of seats based on recent polls would put Labour third in votes but first in seats. And the Lib Dems, first in votes, would come third in seats.
Prior to the debates, whilst most polls pointed to a hung parliament it was one in which the Conservatives would most likely have emerged with most seats. No longer. On most projections from the post-debate polls (and the precise details differ depending how you make that projection), we will have a hung parliament but with Labour as the largest party in terms of seats. And that is the real game changer from Thursday.
If they can push on, and increase support, then the Lib Dems might break through this barrier, and begin to be properly rewarded in seats. But they need around 37/38% to become the largest single party, and around the 40% mark to form a majority. And short of that, the Lib Dem surge hurts the Conservatives more than it hurts Labour.
This does, however, pose a problem for Nick Clegg. The Lib Dem position is that, in the event of a hung parliament, they are prepared to reach agreement with whichever party has the most obvious ‘mandate’ from the voters.
Nick Clegg, has, however always been very careful not to specify whether mandate means votes or seats, arguing that this is a hypothetical discussion, the sort of thing that nerdy academics worry about but which didn’t worry normal folk much.
In fact, it has always been a real possibility that Labour might emerge with more seats but with fewer votes. And on today’s poll is looks even less hypothetical.
Would the Lib Dems prop up a government that had come third in the popular vote? Now, there’s a question many of us didn’t think we’d be asking when this campaign began.
Professor Philip Cowley
Saturday, 17 April 2010
Now that's what I call a poll
"Who said elections were dull?"Until the debates, every opinion poll during the election had shown the Conservatives on 38+/-3, and Labour on 30+/-3. The YouGov poll published in the Sun today is the first to show movement beyond the sort of fluctuations you get from sampling error.
And how. It puts the Lib Dems in second place, with 30%, behind the Conservatives on 34%, with Labour now trailing in third (28%).
There are multiple reasons to be at least cautious about a) assuming that things will stay like this, or b) trying to work out what that means in terms of seats. These are explained very well at the superb UK Polling Report website.
But the one thing we can be certain of – it’s certainly livened things up. Who said elections were dull?
Professor Philip Cowley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
