Reply to: How historically accurate are election projections based on polls?

[Pickle2]

Well I know lots of Labour voters - racists and bigots to a man.

so you'll be voting lib-dem then?

[Green Mango]

That tells you a lot about the core Tory vote. They'd rather a liberal than vote for a black man!!

Lets just hope the "bigots" dont get back in eh?

Well I know lots of Labour voters - racists and bigots to a man.

[Pickle2]

The Tory candidate in 1992 was black. That explains the move to the Lib Dems; making the situation exceptional.

That tells you a lot about the core Tory vote. They'd rather a liberal than vote for a black man!!

Lets just hope the "bigots" dont get back in eh?

[NoddY]

The Tory candidate in 1992 was black. That explains the move to the Lib Dems; making the situation exceptional.

I agree with Gonzo, the country is geographically polarised. There is little geographical mixing amongst the classes and across age ranges. The 'typical' market town is becoming a thing of the past.

[gingerjedi]

I guess you're supposing the pay is much higher than it actually is...

You're right, GCHQ permy pay is quite pathetic yet they pay contractors vast sums to keep them interested. If they cleared more people they'd soon realise they're paying way more than they need to.

[threaded]

I'd bet all the surrounding rural areas are safe Tory seats, which is probably where the retired colonels and spies actually live.

I guess you're supposing the pay is much higher than it actually is...

[VectraMan]

Yet even they can fall. In 1992 Cheltenham, that bastion of retired Colonels and GCHQ spies, went from Tory to LibDem - the first time Cheltenham had been represented by a non-Conservative (allowing for some Independent Conservatives) since 1906, as far as I can determine. (A Liberal Baronet won in December 1910, but was "unseated by petition" - not sure how that works...)

I'm not sure how much Chelteneham would have been considered a safe seat. It's a city, and has it's fair share of dole scroungers and council estates as well as the traditional posh image. I'd bet all the surrounding rural areas are safe Tory seats, which is probably where the retired colonels and spies actually live. (It's the same in Oxfordshire, which is all Tory safe seats, except for Oxford which has one Labour and one LibDem MP).

I guess all this comes down to how much people are prepared to vote tactically. If they ignore the crazyness of the voting system and what's going on in their local area, then the BBC's predicter ought to be pretty accurate. And I think most either don't really understand the system, or at least can't be bothered with trying to understand the system, and will just vote for the leader.

[NotAllThere]

New Scientist published an article that predicts "...a hung parliament, with 290 seats going to the Conservatives, 247 to Labour, 70 to the Liberal Democrats, and 25 to other parties"

We'll see.

[Gonzo]

Yet even they can fall. In 1992 Cheltenham, that bastion of retired Colonels and GCHQ spies, went from Tory to LibDem - the first time Cheltenham had been represented by a non-Conservative (allowing for some Independent Conservatives) since 1906, as far as I can determine. (A Liberal Baronet won in December 1910, but was "unseated by petition" - not sure how that works...)

There will always be exceptions. I think in that election the retired Colonels and GCHQ spies demonstrated that they were more conservative than Conservative.

[NickFitz]

There are some seats that are so rock-solid Conservative that applying the national swing is pointless. Likewise to the seats that are rock-solid Labour.

Yet even they can fall. In 1992 Cheltenham, that bastion of retired Colonels and GCHQ spies, went from Tory to LibDem - the first time Cheltenham had been represented by a non-Conservative (allowing for some Independent Conservatives) since 1906, as far as I can determine. (A Liberal Baronet won in December 1910, but was "unseated by petition" - not sure how that works...)

[NickFitz]

...which makes me wonder why everyone is so optimistic about Labour not getting in?

pessimistic

[Gonzo]

From their own description:

Party seat totals are calculated by applying a uniform national swing. This assumes that for every seat in the country, each party's vote share changes by the same amount.
So this is a crude model - in reality every seat is unique.

The reality is that the UK is diverse. There are some seats that are so rock-solid Conservative that applying the national swing is pointless. Likewise to the seats that are rock-solid Labour.

The make-up of the next government is decided by the voters in a much smaller area than the UK as a whole, which makes the whole election prediction business so interesting.

[BolshieBastard]

Not certain about the 'election predictor' as that possibly measures people prejudices and favours?

Anyone doing an opinion poll will tell you that a representative sample of about 2000 people in a number of constituencies across the country is needed to form a trend.

These polls tend to be correct + / - about 5%. So, in a constituency where the final voting difference between the return MP and other main challenger, the poll for that constituency could be totally incorrect.

[VectraMan]

As well I think the LibDem support is over-estimated, because people are more likely to say they'll vote Lib Dem, perhaps because it appears to be the alternate, or even trendy vote, but won't do so in the privacy of a voting booth.

It's interesting that the media continue talking about the percentages in the polls, and I don't think have made enough of this issue of the system being fixed in favour of Labour. Really the LibDems shouldn't be getting the coverage they are, and shouldn't have been part of the debates, because when it comes to counting the seats, they're not in it at all. And also when it comes to the seats, the Conservatives and Labour are neck and neck, which is not the impression you get from the TV coverage.

[Green Mango]

The tendency is to underestimate the eventual Tory vote. Apparently many folk who vote Tory don't say they will beforehand to pollsters. I don't know why. Classic example was for John Major when he won the election that he should really have lost for the good of the country. If Kinnock had won, the Tories would have bounced back in 97 instead of letting NL into power. Sadly, I really think Cameroon will win with a small majority, but I think he'll be booted back out after 1 term.

That used to be the case, but apparently this has now changed to LAbour.
Many Labour voters are now ashamed to say that they will vote for Labour.

That is not difficult to understand given Labour have wrecked the country's finances
for a generation. Also the thousands of deaths that Labour have caused through their perfidious
pursuit of the Iraq war has made honest Labour voter ashamed that they ever voted for them.