UK Election: 6 May 2010

[RandBlade]

Even if Labour finishes third in total votes, they'll finish second in seats, potentially even having a plurality. You have a nice political system.

As I've said, don't believe UNS. Its simplistic, according to UNS if Labour were to get 0 votes they'd still win seats. BS. UNS doesn't work when there are 3 parties and its a bad seat model, all other seat models put the results more 'fairly'. Although the LDs do suffer by being common second-placers, up to a point. Were they to become more popular it starts to work in their favour, after about 38% you could start to get a Lib-Dem plurality/majority.

Is there any particular reason you have 650 MPs by the way? That's about 7 times more representation per capita than the US.

Tory policy is to cut it by 10%.

As a guess, I'd say because the Commons is both legislature and executive.

[Loki]

Another question: how come we don't see poll results that take districts into account? No one in the US was making predictions about which party will get how many seats based on national polling numbers. Why aren't British pollsters looking at who'll win every individual district? Surely that would be a far better indicator of who'll win how many seats than the inane method being used now.

[GGT]

Have you found a niche, Loki? Since you seem to love statistics and politics, perhaps you can find a job in the UK? Or are you trying really hard to put your skillz to money? These things are never truly clear.

[Loki]

That's not a job for a political scientist; it's a job for a major polling company.

[GGT]

That's not a job for a political scientist; it's a job for a major polling company.

Sure, but your implication is that no UK political party is utilizing a major polling company. They do employ political scientists with a statistical background. The client just wants to know how to use both "sciences" to improve their odds for election, or at least fending off "bad press".

[Spawnie]

Interesting debate. Brown still better then he used to be, given his apparent disability in front of cameras. Not as good as last week though. Still seemed to do alright on "im the only one here who actually deals with this stuff." Which is a fair point. I thought his thing on immigration wasnt actually too bad. Labour actually have put in ways, effective or not, to manage immigration and plan to further it. Comparing that against two other parties which are essentially free to promise whatever they like, it has an effect. He gets to say "I did, and it wasnt perfect, but hindsight is the only perfect science."

Clegg does well again when he gets to run his mouth. Both other parties getting better at shutting him down. I think they know his weak points now - trident, nuclear energy, no experience, weak economically. I thought he sounded really really weak on the economy and tax, though his shots at the other two paries were pretty sharp. Was surprised by his turnaround on that amnesty. He denied it, then affirmed it. Weird. Admittedly he was defending himself against Camerons jab, but it was a stange dance. The important thing is that he talks like he belongs there. Big step for the lib dems.

Cameron was much better. His opening statement was excellent in delivery and content. He did well on almost everything, even though i disagree with him on immigration. (Hes still a posh twat though... )

All three slipping in their catchphrases - "political point scoring, two old parties, blah blah blah"

We should have done a TWF live blog on the debates...

[GGT]

Since this is new for the UK, having a live televized debate like this, I want to go back to Loki and ask if our "random audiences" with their handy little devices used for instant analyses put on graph form (broadcast live for others to watch) wouldn't be a variable?

Exit polls, live polls, OMG we have so many types of polls that they seem reactive or stupid. But it reminds me of the debate between Kennedy and Nixon, when telegenics first came on the scene. Radio listeners and television listeners "polled differently", but the votes came out in favor of the visuals. Then "handlers" were employed.

Maybe I'm remembering that wrong.

[Loki]

Sure, but your implication is that no UK political party is utilizing a major polling company. They do employ political scientists with a statistical background. The client just wants to know how to use both "sciences" to improve their odds for election, or at least fending off "bad press".

I think they are, just not systematically. I've seen reports about each party targeting certain seats and having polling in those areas, but the polling is done by the parties, and only in those limited areas, which is not particularly efficient. The polling formulas are created by statisticians who have a minimal knowledge of political science.

[GGT]

So you found a niche? Past polls in the US have driven many future election formats. ie Obama had people who figured out the electoral vote and targeted those areas first, as a strategy. Obama had nothing to do with that....he just gave speeches at the right places and the right times.

Right?

[Loki]

Yes, I'm going to start my own polling company, find billions in start-up capital and find hundreds of statisticians to work for me.

Also keep in mind that if I was in this for the money, I wouldn't be in grad school.

[littlelolligagged]

Yes, I'm going to start my own polling company, find billions in start-up capital and find hundreds of statisticians to work for me.

Also keep in mind that if I was in this for the money, I wouldn't be in grad school.

Hey, can you pay me millions to boss the statisticians around?

[GGT]

Yes, I'm going to start my own polling company, find billions in start-up capital and find hundreds of statisticians to work for me.

Oh stop with the drama.

I think you may have found a niche, Mr Kissinger. After Brown loses (and he will) you could be the academic running in to say I told you so....here, read my white paper on the importance of melding public opinion with media coverage, and polling sciences as predictors using both.

[Loki]

I know you're probably not concerned with these distinctions, but people who specialize in American politics are the ones who do any research about polling. I haven't even taken a single graduate class in American politics, which suggests A) I'm not qualified to do this, and more importantly, B) I don't really care about this topic.

Hey, can you pay me millions to boss the statisticians around?

A) You'd do it for free.
B) You wouldn't care if they were statisticians.

[littlelolligagged]

A) You'd do it for free.
B) You wouldn't care if they were statisticians.

Why shouldn't I be paid to exercise my considerable talents, though?

I'll boss you around for free.

[RandBlade]

Another question: how come we don't see poll results that take districts into account? No one in the US was making predictions about which party will get how many seats based on national polling numbers. Why aren't British pollsters looking at who'll win every individual district? Surely that would be a far better indicator of who'll win how many seats than the inane method being used now.

We do get "polls of marginals". Typically Lab-Con marginals because that's where most of the election will be decided, in the lead-up to the election there were quite a few marginal polls were it was assumed that the very weak Labour seats would easily fall, so eg seats 50-100 on the Tory target list were polled. These consistently showed that there was a 2% greater swing in the marginals than nationally.

ICM/The Guardian had uniquely a poll of Lib-Dem marginals earlier this week too, following the "Cleggasm". Despite the national opinion polls showing a big swing from both parties to the Lib-Dems, the marginals poll showed that in Labour -> LD marginals there was a bigger swing than the national opinion polls imply, while in Con -> LD polls there is a lower but still present swing than what is shown in the national polls. Imply the LDs to take more seats from Labour than national polls imply while getting fewer, if any, off the Tories.

These marginal polls are one (of many) reasons I believe UNS seat predictors to be complete and utter BS and that Labour will be pounded on Thursday more fairly than UNS predicts.

[Loki]

An aggregate poll of marginal seats is almost as useless as the national figures. Why not have individual polls in each constituency?

[RandBlade]

Because it is incredibly expensive and barely worth it.

There have been some - there was a poll of the uniquely 4-way marginal Norwich North recently which showed the Greens quite well (they have this and Brighton Pavilion as 2 serious contenders for their first Parliamentary seat, I expect them to get Brighton). But overall its not really value for money in the same way.

Closest thing I can think of is a mammoth survey done twice by YouGov for Politicshome.com which had something like a sample of 18,000 (vs normally 1000-1500). The seats selected were organised into groups of 5 based on shared characteristics (party holding/chasing, demographics, etc, etc)

[Loki]

How would having individual polls for 650 constituencies be much more difficult or expensive than doing the same for 435 Congressional seats? And again, aggregate statistics mean nothing. For all we know, a few of the seats are driving most of the change.

[Lor]

I watched some of last nights debate, but had to turn it over as the missus wanted to watch something 'less boring' (Don't ask!).

I liked how Brown immediately admitted he got it wrong last night in regards to his comments made about a certain lady, it did seem like a feeble attempt to ensure than none of the other two bring it up. I don't really care for his admission though, if he can't get it right with some general basic manners then for me it doesn't really bode well for his ability to run a country (put aside the fact we know he can't in the first place).

On another note has any of the 3 party leaders spoke about fuel costs or transportation as a whole? I'd like to know their stance on the subject if anyone could shed some light, that would be grand.

[RandBlade]

How would having individual polls for 650 constituencies be much more difficult or expensive than doing the same for 435 Congressional seats? And again, aggregate statistics mean nothing. For all we know, a few of the seats are driving most of the change.

You've already told us it'll be 7 times as expensive per capita

Lor: Its not really been brought up this debate, or much this campaign that I've noticed, but the Conservatives have a fuel policy for a while now called the "fuel stabiliser". To replace the "fuel escalator" which is the ever-increasing tax on fuel come what may, the idea of a fuel stabiliser tax would instead be to stabilise the price a bit more, when the price of oil shoots up, duty on petrol would go down - and vice-versa. When the price of oil shoots up then the government gets more in VAT anyway and vice-versa so this would help cancel each other out and stabilise the price from the wild swings that have happened in recent years. Not heard anything from Lab/LD.

EDIT: Googling it and it seems they're talking a cut in price 10p/litre at current prices: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...el-prices.html

[RandBlade]

Just saw this Daily Show clip of Jon Stewarts thoughts on our election: http://tv.gawker.com/5527780/jon-ste...tical-scandals

Quite funny

[Steely Glint]

Jon Stewart is too good for America, we must appropriate him.

[Steely Glint]

Apparently, Gordon Brown is going to "dig deeper". The hole is already pretty big, Gordon.

[Spawnie]

So. I think i might vote lib dem.

Ok, so its pointless. Whatever.

I hate labours enthusiastic erosion of civil liberties, dont think ID cards are a good idea, or that under them the working man (labours raison d'etre) is essentially not much better off (brown talking about the middle class and how he wants people to become middle class is disgusting, as far as im concerned). Im not convinced that anyone would have done better or worse on the economy or on social issues. While i like the money they have put into the NHS, the legalisation of civil unions and the lowering of the crime rate, i am not convinced that gordon brown had much to do with that or that he has done much in time when he was in charge.

As for the tories, i cannot accept their position on europe or the euro. I dont agree with their immigration policy or their backhands to the already rich. I think they are a better option than labour at the moment because they are hungry for power and will be more likely to actually do some good. Not convinced by their promise to do an immediate "emergency budget" if they win, though.

As for the lib dems, i disagree entirely on their nuclear power policy, mostly on their trident policy, and a bit on their political reform policy. However, as i see it, these are things they are unlikely to be able to stop in the long run, even if they were to actually gain power, which they wont. They looked shaky on the economy but they wont actually be running banks, so it prob wont be too bad, and i like their immigration policy and whatnot.

The only problem facing me is the Lib Dem candidate for my area looks like Rafa Benitez and is completely inexperienced afaik. Even his propagnda newsleter was shit. The tory bloke here had a great newsletter, showing exactly how he had helped the community. I agreed with all but one thing he did, as well.

So, if i had a choice, i would vote tory locally, and lib dem nationally.

As it is, i only have one vote. Im still torn as to how it should go.

[Loki]

The fact that they have absolutely no idea what to do when in power or that their policies, if implemented, would likely bankrupt the country, doesn't bother you? Or the fact that they promised so many different things to different people that you really have no way of knowing whether they'll keep the promises you want them to keep?

[CitizenCain]

Or the fact that they promised so many different things to different people that you really have no way of knowing whether they'll keep the promises you want them to keep?

That's an irrelevant factor to determining whether or not a politician will keep promises.

[Loki]

The Lib Dems take it to an extreme even by political standards. Being out of power for your entire existence does that to you.

[RandBlade]

Not convinced by their promise to do an immediate "emergency budget" if they win, though.

I'm surprised that of all things this disturbs you.

We desperately need a proper budget, which is what an "emergency budget" will be. Labour cancelled the Comprehensive Spending Review due last year, the budget this year was a joke. Every single decision has been kicked into the long grass to be dealt with after the election, either the new government can start to deal with the crisis Brown is bequeathing, or wait 11 months then start to do it. Which would you prefer?

If there's no "emergency budget" then there'll be hell to pay on the international markets. We're in little better a situation than Greece right now, but the markets are assuming (unlike Greece) that something will be done about it very shortly.

[Spawnie]

The fact that they have absolutely no idea what to do when in power or that their policies, if implemented, would likely bankrupt the country, doesn't bother you? Or the fact that they promised so many different things to different people that you really have no way of knowing whether they'll keep the promises you want them to keep?

First, they will not be in power. The chances of this are more than minimal.

Second, what makes you think their policies will bankrupt the country?

Third, their contradictory promises are both more than matched by both of the other parties and the ones i dislike are least likely to be implemented. The one i dislike most is their electoral reform, and i dont -really- mind either way. Personally i dont think the present system is too bad, and the current trend of whinging about unfairness comes from people who before this year knew nothing abhout politics and would now like to pretend they do.

[Loki]

First, they will not be in power. The chances of this are more than minimal.

Second, what makes you think their policies will bankrupt the country?

Third, their contradictory promises are both more than matched by both of the other parties and the ones i dislike are least likely to be implemented. The one i dislike most is their electoral reform, and i dont -really- mind either way. Personally i dont think the present system is too bad, and the current trend of whinging about unfairness comes from people who before this year knew nothing abhout politics and would now like to pretend they do.

A) Cut most university fees
B) "plans for a rail renaissance, reopening closed railway lines and new stations and building a High Speed Network"
C) "oppose all airport expansion serving London and the South East"
D) "buses and trains should be affordable and reliable so people can have a real choice about how to travel"
E) "increase the number of apprenticeships, and places on university and vocational higher education courses"
F) " raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax from current levels to £10,000, cutting the average working age person’s income tax bill by £700 and cutting pensioner’s income tax bills by £100."
G) "will give people the power to stop hospital closures in their area through elected local health boards"
H) "putting 3,000 more police officers on the beat"

That's just from going through their official platform.