politicalbetting.com

And 53% predict that Labour will win a fourth term

Full details are now out on the Ipsos Mori site of the poll of members of the Political Studies Association which was prepared for their annual conference this week.

Although no voting intention was asked the 283 respondents responded were questioned about what outcome they personally were hoping for at the General Election. These were the shares - LAB maj 54%: HUNG 21%: CON maj 15% so it is reasonable to assume that 54-15 would be the LAB-CON split.

The shares are remarkably similar to their predictions of what they thought would actually happen LAB maj 53% : HUNG 28%: CON maj 18%. Clearly a lot of the 54% of Labour supporters were amongst the 53% predicting a majority Labour government.

On their choice of “most capable PM” the group went 49-10 for Brown over Cameron. On “most capable” Chancellor it was Brown 68: Cable 8: Osborne 4%.

Obviously few PSA members are active on the General Election outcome betting markets where their overwhelming prediction, a Labour majority, is the least favoured by punters prepared to risk their money. The latest prices are LAB maj 2.6/1: HUNG 1.38/1: CON maj 2.3/1.

Mike Smithson

Who’ll win battles between Labour and the Lib Dems?

While most of the focus has been on the Tories and Labour we should not forget the other major battle-ground at the next General Election - those seats where Labour and the Lib Dems are slugging it out. And for me nowhere is more interesting than Manchester Withington - where in May 2005 John Leech for the Lib Dems turned round a Labour majority of 11,500 votes increasing the party’s share from 22% to 42.4% in the process.

Such was the scale of the Lib Dem victory here that it even took the bookies by surprise and I cannot recall there even being a betting market.

A feature in May 2005 was the level of tactical voting by Tories. On a day when the party was increasing its vote nationally the Tory Withington vote dropped by nearly a third to 10.5% - a move that played a big part in Labour’s defeat.

Manchester Withington is a classic university seat where a significant part of the electorate either works or studies at one of the city’s massive universities. It also has large Muslim populations all adding up to attractive targets for the Lib Dems in the post-Iraq War and post university top-up fees situation.

But will those conditions exist next time? Will a Brown rather than a Blair-led Labour be less alien to large sections of the electorate ?

Certainly a consistent feature in the polls over the past year is that a sizeable number of those who supported Charles Kennedy’s party in 2005 say they would vote for a Brown-led Labour. And Iraq, surely, will be much less of a problem for Gordon than it has been for Blair? After all the Chancellor was not the driving force behind Britain’s decision to support George Bush.

In those ex-Labour seats that the Lib Dems now hold, though, even the overall changed political environment might not be enough. The squeeze on the Withington Tories in 2005 shows the potential for tactical voting and you cannot imagine the local Conservative party putting in much effort. After all it is in David Cameron’s strong interest that seats beyond the reach of his party should not go to Labour.

The tactical voting proposition is harder to make where the Lib Dem is not the incumbent and the party might find it quite challenging in seats like Oxford East where it is head to head with Labour but was just behind in 2005.

On a personal note I have very close links with Withington. It is where I was born and brought up and where at the tender age of 16 I was elected to my first political office as Vice-Chairman of Withington Young Socialists. In those days, of course, Withington was solidly Tory and remained so until the 1987 General Election.

Mike Smithson

Encouraging response to PBC’s observations

Following yesterday’s article and thread on the methodology being used for the new month Communicate Research poll in the Independent I have had an encouraging response from both the pollster and the newspaper.

I wrote to both making the same point: “What convinces me about the need for past vote weighting is the sheer consistency of the figures that both Populus and ICM get when they ask how people voted last time. I’ve been monitoring this since the General Election and although there might be the odd spike in almost every three month period on a rolling average since May 2005 the proportion from both pollsters recalling that they voted Labour has not strayed outside the 44-45% range. Given that 36.2% actually voted for the party on May 5th 2005 there would seem to be a strong case for some sort of remedial measure.”

This is a point I have been making irrespective of the poll shares that the surveys produce. The same observation appeared last month when there was a Tory lead as this month with Labour ahead.

This is the response I have got from the paper’s political editor, Andrew Grice. “We will take the point you make into account. The Independent worked out and agreed the methodology jointly with Communicate Research but we have an open mind about it and keep it under constant review.”

This is clearly very welcome and should be applauded. We should also be delighted that the paper has now decided to commission a poll every month adding to the overall amount of polling information that will be available.

Although I have been critical of CR about the lack of past vote weighting the pollster is using some innovative measures and it will be fascinating to watch how these pans out. The firm also gets it detailed poll data out on its website very quickly which is very helpful.

Mike Smithson

How much did the bill-boards help Labour to victory?

There is something rather ironic about the fact that a big part of the money Labour borrowed in the run-up to the 2005 General Election was spent on bill-boards like the one above promoting the Government’s successes with the economy and interest rate policy.

This was a key theme in the huge advertising blitz in the run-up to May 5th and on which a large part of the borrowed money was spent.

These are the loans, of course, which are at the heart of Labour’s current financial crisis and, possibly even more seriously, are central to the Scotland Yard’s “honours” inquiry.

But were the financial consequences that we are now seeing and having to deal with the police investigation worth it? Will Labour’s reputation for economic competence be affected by the party’s current financial turmoil? Were those posters really worth the price?

Compared with the election land-slides of 1997 and 2001 the 2005 General Election was a close result. Labour lost one in seven of its 2001 votes and ended up with a margin on votes of just 3%. Yet in terms of seats the 36% national vote share produced an overall Commons majority of getting on for 70.

It is hard to say, of course, what finally caused the electorate to vote in the way it did. But one thing seems certain after the party funding row - billboard campaigns like the one featured will not be used on anything like the same scale next time.

If strict national spending limits are imposed, as Labour is reported to want, then the big poster campaigns will surely be the first casualty.

The best way to invest precious campaigning cash is probably on things like the centralised direct marketing operation that the Tories established and utilised so well in 2005. They were able to supplement weak local parties in key seats and target spending where it was going to be most effective.

A good measure of the effectiveness of this approach was that the Tories ended up with 15-20 more seats than the seat predictors were suggesting and those who “bought” Tory seats in the final week on the election spread markets made nice profits.

Mike Smithson