Yes/No to AV - Urban Votes

[ymu]

Do you, or do you not, know what UK Polling Report is and what it does? Why in holy crap do I need to talk about swings when we both know the methodology used to translate poll results into seats.

Stop this. Stop this now. You're doing my fucking head in.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You need to talk about swings because they are the most relevant way of looking at results. The tories do not have an overall majority, so what % of swing is needed to give Labour a 50 seat majority. How does that particular swing stack up against swings in the past where the sitting govt's popularity has fallen sharply, only to recover in time for the election? That is the correct way to interpret the significance of these results, as they show how much ground the tories have lost in the last year, how much ground they would have to make up to win an election, and how this pattern compares to the past.

You can bet your arse that this is the way tory and labour strategists will be looking at this data. Do you think this is not the right way to look at it? If so, why? If not, why did you not talk about swings in your post?

I'm asking for a bit of rigour in your use of statistics, that's all. Given that you are a statistician, I don't think that is too much to ask.

 

[sihhi]

It's all academic. At the end of the day only 13.3% of the electorate voted for AV [6 million out of 45 million].
Out of every eight voters, only one voted for AV.

 

[ernestolynch]

Brixton, Tottenham and Hackney - comfortable liberals? Turnout nails the myth that no-one gave a shit.

Areas full of hipsters, manbags, snoods and iPhones. All reading the Guardian in trendy bars and 'coffee shops'.

The AV demographic.

 

[ymu]

You need to talk about swings because they are the most relevant way of looking at results. The tories do not have an overall majority, so what % of swing is needed to give Labour a 50 seat majority. How does that particular swing stack up against swings in the past where the sitting govt's popularity has fallen sharply, only to recover in time for the election? That is the correct way to interpret the significance of these results, as they show how much ground the tories have lost in the last year, how much ground they would have to make up to win an election, and how this pattern compares to the past.

You can bet your arse that this is the way tory and labour strategists will be looking at this data. Do you think this is not the right way to look at it? If so, why? If not, why did you not talk about swings in your post?

I'm asking for a bit of rigour in your use of statistics, that's all. Given that you are a statistician, I don't think that is too much to ask.

You're responding to a post I wrote in your head.

Try reading, and making an extra special effort at comprehending, what I actually wrote whilst you were making up the latest chapter of the World According to LBJ: reality is as I think it is, a disappointingly sub-Randian effort without even any decent pornographic content to give it some redeeming features.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What I'm not responding to is any post by you that analyses swings.

As for the rest of it, you're better than that, I would have thought. sub-Randian? Again, back that up or take it back.

I'll ask you directly what I think needs to be explained about those stats: What percentage swing tory to labour do those poll results represent, and how does that swing compare to swings tory to labour in mid-term for Thatcher or Major? Show me that there is a significant swing here that has never been seen before for a govt that goes on to win the election, and you might be onto something.

 

[sihhi]

Areas full of hipsters, manbags, snoods and iPhones. All reading the Guardian in trendy bars and 'coffee shops'.

The AV demographic.

Tottenham is not full of hipsters, although some have started coming. The vote result was for Haringey - remember 65% of people did not vote in Haringey.
Where did they have the big Yes turnouts: my guess is it correlates with Lib Dem wards of the council (2010) Hornsey, Fortis Green, Crouch End, Muswell Hill, Highgate, Stroud Green. Even the two Labour CLPs did not campaign for AV, it was Lammy's office and friends did it for show once (to suck up to Ed Miliband).
There was zero about. Last weekend there was anti-cuts stall on Wood Green High Road, this morning no stall but leafleters. There was zero AV action on the ground

 

[articul8]

Which makes it all the more impressive that the turnout was broadly comparable to local elections.

 

[articul8]

There is no way on God's green earth that the Tories are going to win an outright majority at the next election, you tool.

Wanna bet? I think there's every chance - the fact that LDs are no challenge now will mean they can pick off the Labour marginals. Cameron must be thinking seriously about going for an early one. Only thing stopping him is that having Clegg take all the flack is so useful for him.

 

[sihhi]

Which makes it all the more impressive that the turnout was broadly comparable to local elections.

You see a high turnout in a referendum as a good thing??!?

 

[articul8]

Depends on the referendum. Unless I believed all the options were equally worthless then yes...

 

[sihhi]

Wanna bet? I think there's every chance - the fact that LDs are no challenge now will mean they can pick off the Labour marginals. Cameron must be thinking seriously about going for an early one. Only thing stopping him is that having Clegg take all the flack is so useful for him.

LLETSA is right though, people will come out for Labour, like in 1974, not that it matters who's on top.

 

[sihhi]

Depends on the referendum. Unless I believed all the options were equally worthless then yes...

60% of the country believed the two options were equally worthless. If the ERS/YES trusted people, rather than spewing 'AV is anti-Nick Griffin' lies, that would be the argument you'd be making right now.

If only 42% of a country votes in a referendum, it means both options have been rejected. There was 65% turnout in the 1975 referendum.
Clearly the people want neither AV nor FPTP.

 

[ymu]

I mean every word of it lbj. And if you ever come across this thread, many years hence, and re-read it in the cold light of day (or just plain hindsight), you will be wondering what the hell you'd been drinking today.

 

[Refused as fuck]

Which makes it all the more impressive that the turnout was broadly comparable to local elections.

 

[articul8]

LLETSA is right though, people will come out for Labour, like in 1974, not that it matters who's on top.

They didn't come out for Labour in 83 or 87 or 92 though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I mean every word of it lbj. And if you ever come across this thread, many years hence, and re-read it in the cold light of day (or just plain hindsight), you will be wondering what the hell you'd been drinking today.

I asked you a direct question about swings. Answer it, please.

As for the various insults/accusations you've hurled at me, they are laughable. Perhaps you will recognise that at some point and take them back.

 

[sihhi]

They didn't come out for Labour in 83 or 87 or 92 though.

That's because the Alliance was a viable anti-Conservative/anti-government vote then.
It isn't now, because of the past year. The only way to 'viable' way to register displeasure at the ballot box at the next general election will be voting Labour - not that it will mean anything.
Aren't you a Labour member, now?
A Labour-SNP-SDLP coalition at Westminster is on the cards for the next general election, with a promise for good terms of separation if/when there is a SNP-Holyrood Independence ballot.
The Lib Dems are over. SNP if they manage to deflect responsibility for the cuts onto the Tories-Lib Dems (and Labour) are the new coalition partners for Labour.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There is strong evidence that the Alliance took just as many votes from the Conservatives as Labour in the 80s. I don't think it is clear who will benefit most from a collapse in the libdem vote. It may not help Labour much.

 

[ymu]

I asked you a direct question about swings. Answer it, please.

As for the various insults/accusations you've hurled at me, they are laughable. Perhaps you will recognise that at some point and take them back.

Do yiu ever read anyone else's posts, or are you too busy admiring your own?

You're responding to a post I wrote in your head.

Try reading, and making an extra special effort at comprehending, what I actually wrote whilst you were making up the latest chapter of the World According to LBJ: reality is as I think it is, a disappointingly sub-Randian effort without even any decent pornographic content to give it some redeeming features.

The post referred to above:

Do you, or do you not, know what UK Polling Report is and what it does? Why in holy crap do I need to talk about swings when we both know the methodology used to translate poll results into seats.

Stop this. Stop this now. You're doing my fucking head in.

Put in the simplest possible terms, how the fuck do you think I know that the 2011 polls predict a 50-90 seat majority for Labour if a general election had been held in the first four months of 2011?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've explained why you need to talk about swings. At length.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

put in the simplest possible terms, how the fuck do you think i know that the 2011 polls predict a 50-90 seat majority for labour if a general election had been held in the first four months of 2011?

what swing does that represent?

I'm going to keep asking this until you tell me. Your stat is not in full context without it.

 

[ymu]

I've explained why you need to talk about swings. At length.

And I've explained why it's another irrelevant red herring.

When I refer you to UK Polling Report in the same breath as giving a predicted Labour majority, it's not because UK Polling Report aren't using (their version of) uniform swing to translate the results. They even give you all the precautionary rubric.

Which you'd know if you could be arsed to do some work instead of endlessly whining about the same flawed assumptions that you so bizarrely latch onto like this.

Now quit ruining the thread and do some reading.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How does that compare to the 1980s, then? How can you compare a predicted majority now with then and take significance from that, given that the swing in terms of seats to a Labour majority of 50-90 is far smaller now than it would have been in the 80s? You are not using statistics responsibly here.

You said this:

Maggie never won an election where Labour were predicted a 50-90 seat majority in the polls. Major never won an election where Labour were predicted a 50-90 seat majority in the polls.

But a prediction of a Labour majority of 50-90 for either Thatcher or Major would have represented a far larger swing in terms of seats - let alone voter numbers - than it would for Cameron. What is the significance of this statement?

 

[kabbes]

lbj, the problem with your analysis is that you are concentrating on a one-way swing. Actually, there are three swings in action: Labour/Tory, Liberal/Tory and Liberal/Labour. Evidence from this week is that there were swings from Liberal and Tory to Labour but also from Liberal to Tory. That makes the analysis complex from a swing perspective. Better to go back to the actual votes and put them in the context of implied seats.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, I know it is complex. But that doesn't change the fact that you have to consider the difference in starting point in terms of the current make-up of parliament when comparing now with the 1980s, which is what ymu is doing.

 

[kabbes]

Yes, I know it is complex. But that doesn't change the fact that you have to consider the difference in starting point in terms of the current make-up of parliament when comparing now with the 1980s, which is what ymu is doing.

No, ymu is just pointing out that intermediary elections between 79 and 83 would never have indicated a 60-90 seat lead for Labour. Whereas this one does.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, ymu is just pointing out that intermediary elections between 79 and 83 would never have indicated a 60-90 seat lead for Labour. Whereas this one does.

And she's implying that there are conclusions to be drawn from that - specifically that the tories can't win the next election. I am contending that this is far from the case because such a lead for Labour represents a far smaller swing Tory to Labour than it would have done then. Even allowing for the complications you point out, this is still the case.

And in fact, she isn't talking about intermediary elections. She's talking about opinion polls.

 

[ymu]

No, ymu is just pointing out that intermediary elections between 79 and 83 would never have indicated a 60-90 seat lead for Labour. Whereas this one does.

Between '79 and '92, hactually. But thanking you kindly. Are you up for taking over, because my sleep thing and lbj are pushing me beyond the limits of my ability to remain calm - and it's affecting other people now too.

<thanks fuck for kabbes>

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Between '79 and '92, hactually. But thanking you kindly. Are you up for taking over, because my sleep thing and lbj are pushing me beyond the limits of my ability to remain calm - and it's affecting other people now too.

<thanks fuck for kabbes>

I rather doubt kabbes is going to agree with you on this one.