Yes/No to AV - Urban Votes

[kabbes]

No, I do agree with her. You offered as your reason for pessimism that Labour didn't win in '83 despite strong polling between '79 and '83. I think it's an entirely valid point to make that this supposed "strong polling" didn't actually indicate a 50-90 seat lead in the House of Commons, which means that your comparison is invalid. To put it another way, at no point between 79 and 83 (or indeed between 79 and 92) were Labour EVER in as strong a position as they now are in terms of actual votes and the implied actual seats.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Swing in one or other direction is an indication of your change in popularity. A certain swing is needed to go from last election to now – indicating the change in perception of the tories between now and then. That can swing back, as it did in the 1980s. And the swing from then to now is far from unprecedented. Remember that the Tories were returned with an increased majority in 83. They more than reversed the swing against them mid-term. A similar sized swing from now to the next election would see Cameron mightily close to an overall majority.

This is why considerations of the size of swing are important. You do not have the full context without them.

 

[butchersapron]

Despite their total vote dropping by a million, because, as pointed out earlier, the Labour party lost 3 million votes and the SDP gained 3 million votes. Splitting the anti-tory vote and turning safe labour seats into marginals in the process - precisely why 81-83 is not a good example - the opposite is happening today.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's not quite as simple as that as the SDP took votes from both tory and labour, although electorally, that may have hurt Labour more, I don't know. I do accept that in isolation, the 81-83 example is not a good one, however, yet the pattern was repeated in both of the next two parliaments, with a swing from Tory to Labour in opinion polls that switched back to the Tories come election time.

 

[kabbes]

Swing in one or other direction is an indication of your change in popularity. A certain swing is needed to go from last election to now – indicating the change in perception of the tories between now and then. That can swing back, as it did in the 1980s. And the swing from then to now is far from unprecedented. Remember that the Tories were returned with an increased majority in 83. They more than reversed the swing against them mid-term. A similar sized swing from now to the next election would see Cameron mightily close to an overall majority.

This is why considerations of the size of swing are important. You do not have the full context without them.

But that only works if you are talking about a one-dimensional swing. This is a three-way swing. The swing from Tory to Labour was actually huge, just hidden by the swing from Liberal to Tory. But that translates into seats in a funny way.

I still think it is an eminently reasonable point that at no point between 79 and 92 did Labour EVER have a 50-90 seat lead in the polls whereas now they do. As a fact, it stands on its own merits.

 

[kabbes]

Despite their total vote dropping by a million, because, as pointed out earlier, the Labour party lost 3 million votes and the SDP gained 3 million votes. Splitting the anti-tory vote and turning safe labour seats into marginals in the process - precisely why 81-83 is not a good example - the opposite is happening today.

Ah yes, good point -- it's not even just a three-way swing. You have to look at:

Labour-Tory
Liberal-Tory
Liberal-Labour
Labour-SDP
Liberal-SDP
Tory-SDP

The swings from Liberal to Tory and Labour to SDP are all hiding the fundamental big swing from Tory to Labour.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Tory to SDP too. A majority of the SDP/Liberal voters polled on exiting the polling booth in 1983 stated that their second preference would have been Tory, not Labour. In 1987, a large majority stated that Tory would have been their second choice. The idea that the SDP split the anti-Tory vote is one that is not uncontested. Strange as it may seem, there are people who voted Labour in 1979 and SDP in 1983 who would have voted Tory in 1983 if the SDP had not existed.

Sorry, but you have to look at swings when you're looking for the significance of these results. Otherwise you end up reading significance into them that isn't there.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But that only works if you are talking about a one-dimensional swing.

Strictly speaking, this isn't really true. Of course there are many permutations of swing once you have more than two parties, but what matters is the end result of all the swings added together. And that net result, not just in 1983, but also in 1987, showed a particular pattern - away from the sitting government during its term and then back again to them at the election. And the size of these overall swings in each direction are of great significance when comparing eras.

 

[ymu]

And strictly speaking, of course, do UK Polling Report know a) more or b) less than littlebabyjesus about how to deal with swing problems? And which of these include meticulous disclaimers as to the assumptions used and limits of reasonable interpretation when they publish their research?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Have you remained within the limits of reasonable interpretation in the conclusions you have drawn?

 

[sihhi]

And that net result, not just in 1983, but also in 1987, showed a particular pattern - away from the sitting government during its term and then back again to them at the election.

This happened during 2005-2010 aswell. It also happened during 2001-2005 aswell. Large swing away from Labour during the term then back towards Labour at the election.
What's your point here?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This happened during 2005-2010 aswell. It also happened during 2001-2005 aswell. Large swing away from Labour during the term then back towards Labour at the election.
What's your point here?

My point is that this is what is also happening now - and that I would like to see evidence that the swing happening now is more significant than those that happened in the past. I'm fully aware that it also happened to Labour.

I'm not the one making big claims about the significance of these results here. I don't see them as a sure-fire indication that the Tories are fucked in the next election.

 

[ymu]

And, of course, UK Polling Report aren't looking at swings because they know less than lbj. He knows this without checking because they disagree with him, ergo they are wrong, ergo he is the more appropriate authority to listen to here.

Entitlement ain't the word. Well, it is ... but fuck's sake.

 

[ymu]

Have you remained within the limits of reasonable interpretation in the conclusions you have drawn?

Have you not even bothered to check the source you've been demanding I rewrite for you, in all these pages.

You are beyond parody.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Where did you get the figure that Labour was never that far in the lead 1979-92 from?

There were a good few months there where Labour had a huge lead, far larger than the one they have at the moment. Labour had a more than 10 point lead over the Tories for the whole of the first half of 1990. Did that not translate into a majority of 50+?

 

[ymu]

Swing man! Swing! You have to know about swing to translate votes into seats.

Look it up. I don't recall any election of the 1980s being a surprise outcome. Gutting every last one of them, but surprising? No.

If you think different, you're in the perfect position to prove me wrong. Because you're the country's leading expert on swing.

Go on. Don't go demanding swing calculations from me (after I already gave you the result) and then give me vote %s and tell me that it looks like 50+ seats to you.

The Tories have ghettoised over the last 30 years, hence their structural disadvantage in FPTP and need to gerrymander the constituencies (can't be done - it's structural due to ghettoisation of the rich). As I said a zillion or three posts ago, the Tories could win on a smaller % of the vote then than they can now.

Bizarrely, you know this, being the world's leading expert on swing. So ... over to you.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Come off it. You know full well that in 1990, a more than 10 percentage point lead translated into a sizeable majority for Labour. You got that wrong.

I'm reading the website you recommended to me, btw. I'm not just making this stuff up.

Instead of parroting butchersapron's class bullshit insults, you might want to think why I'm pulling you up on this. I'm not claiming to be an expert. I am merely seeing flaws in the information that is presented to me. And when I investigate, I find that even that information isn't actually right.

The swings in fortune over the course of a parliament can be huge, as the graph from the 87-92 parliament shows. Labour has a relatively narrow lead at the moment, one that translates into a decent majority due to the demographics of constituencies, but one that is in no way historically unprecedented for an opposition party that goes on to lose the election. It can change very quickly, and has changed very quickly in the past. Of course there are complicating factors and the past is an imperfect guide to the future. I would never deny that. But that is simply another reason not to draw any firm conclusions from the current state of polling. There is nothing there that says Cameron cannot win the next election. Nothing at all.

 

[ymu]

We're talking about polls at election time, doofus. What relevance has a 1990 poll to predicting a non-existent 1990 GE when you're saying that I can't use this year's polls to predict the outcome of an election tomorrow.

Find me the figures that predicted victories for Labour of 50-90 seats in the 1980s, or even 1992, and the shocked responses of the commentariat when the Tories won.

I was there. It didn't happen. If you want to say different, you will have to do me the same courtesy as I do you, and present some evidence to back up your analysis.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ah. I wasn't talking about polls at election time. I was talking about the possibility of Cameron winning the election at some unspecified point in the future. I think we may have arrived at the point of our misunderstanding.


BTW, kabbes was talking about the same thing I was. He should have been agreeing with me.

 

[Orang Utan]

ymu - all your posts are voiced in my head by martin prince:

 

[ymu]

That's nice, dear.

 

[ymu]

I fucking love the way he backs down the second kabbes agreed with me. I'm apparently good for kicking around a thread for pages - multiple threads in fact - but the second a man, ten years my junior turns up, he crumbles. I'm better qualified to answer the question than the ever magnificent kabbes, I'm older than him, I post more in politics than him, I always back my stuff up with evidence where he rarely does when the basic answer is so fucking obvious and easy to explain.

Is it because kabbes is a bloke? Is it because he earns 5 times as much as I do? Or do I have a reputation that I didn't know about of being wrong on statistical issues all the time?

I'm not trying to play victim here, but this cunt just ruined my evening on several threads, and the second kabbes turns up, he's pretending it was all a misunderstanding.

/fed-up

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That is a complete misunderstanding of what just happened. I 'backed down' the second I realised you were talking about an election to be called now. Nothing to do with kabbes. In fact, I think kabbes is wrong - he was talking about the same thing as me, and I think he's wrong.

Complete misunderstanding. Really. Fuck me, we've managed to upset each other here, but really, really, the above is not what just happened.

 

[Orang Utan]

 

[ymu]

Yeah, whatever. Don't be such a prick in future. If you ask a question and get answered with a source, read the fucking source before responding.

 

[frogwoman]

actually, she's one of the few i really respect on here. for what shes done in real life as well as on the boards.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Even though she really has misunderstood, it gives my no pleasure to upset ymu. None at all. I don't come on here to upset people.

 

[ymu]

Apologies exchanged and accepted, in both directions (PMs).

Yer all right lbj. And I am an over-aggressive cock sometimes. Not surprising it isn't always easy to follow (for me or anyone else) when I go off on one.

Thanks froggie. That's very sweet.