The first major Holyrood poll of 2011 has provided the perfect opportunity for me to try out my new ‘election predictor’ file. The theory is simple – apply the change from the 2007 results for constituencies and regions to the constituency and regions poll data. So, for example, if the Conservatives received 20,000 Glasgow votes in 2007 and their share of the vote has dropped from 20% to 10% then they will now be awarded 10,000 votes in the 2011 d’Hondt formula. It is an approach devoid of human judgement and it yields the below expectation for May 5th for the following vote
Poll result
Labour – 49%/47%
SNP – 33%/33%
Conservatives – 9%/9%
Lib Dems – 7%/7%
Green – -/3%
Seats (party – FPTP/regional/total)
Labour 55/13/68
SNP 15/30/45
Lib Dems 2/6/8
Conservative 1/6/7
Greens 0/0/0
The tightest constituency would be Orkney which the Lib Dems would hold (over Labour) by only 48 votes and the tightest seat between SNP and Labour would be Dundee East which this polls suggests Labour will win by 173 votes.
The clear overall result is that Labour is on track to romp home with a remarkable majority of 3 MSPs. A clean sweep of FPTP seats in Central, Glasgow, Lothians and the West is the engine behind this streaking ahead of the field, a result that would see a return to the old status quo of Labour hegemony north of the border. Interestingly, the SNP would see an increase in MSPs, gain 2 FPTP Aberdeen seats (from the Lib Dems) and would make large gains in the regional seats. Both Labour and the SNP win a higher proportion of seats than their percentage vote share. (53% to 47% and 35% to 33% respectively)
However, even with the Lib Dems and Conservatives in apparent freefall, the SNP can only make minimal benefit with Labour taking the lion’s share of the moves in votes. So much so that Labour is now on course to win two regional MSPs in Glasgow.
While a Labour List MSP in Glasgow has seemed unlikely in previous elections, it does make sense if > 56% of Glaswegians vote for Iain Gray’s party. There are 9 FPTP seats and 7 regional spots so perhaps it is not worth advising Labour voters to vote tactically with their second vote after all.
The Greens cut something of a forlorn figure on zero MSPs but hopefully, in the absence of an election campaign, these numbers will increase as the poll date draws closer. Nonetheless, it must be concerning for Patrick Harvie’s party that there is no evidence in the above figures that a Lib Dem decline will equate to a Green surge, despite the Green party holding firm to many of the former cornerstones of Lib Dem philosophy. We saw in the Oldham by-election that the Greens couldn’t even overcome UKIP and the BNP despite there being a Lib Dem freefall (masked by Tory tactical voting) so it appears the Greens do not have their challenges to seek. Patrick himself misses out by 2,500 votes going by the above numbers.
In many ways, these results show that the election is in Iain Gray’s hands. If the leader of the Labour group can ‘seal the deal‘ with Scotland between now and May then a majority in the Parliament is within his grasp. If Gray does not make the grade, then that 68 MSP total will start to drop and it is anyone’s guess which of the SNP, Lib Dems, Conservatives and Greens is most likely to benefit.
There’s a long way to go of course but it’s a one-horse race and a one-party Parliament as things stand now…
#1 by Chris on January 17, 2011 - 2:32 pm
Reasonably consistent with the Webb – Shandwick predictor
http://www.scotlandvotes.com/
#2 by Malc on January 17, 2011 - 2:32 pm
Erm… I don’t want to burst your bubble Jeff, but 68 seats? A majority government WITH PR?
I think the problem is that the 49%/47% isn’t uniform – and your example of Orkney shows that. As far as I can remember, Labour are nowhere in Orkney (nor, indeed, are anyone except the Lib Dems) so to have them only 48 votes behind indicates a problem with the methodology I would suggest. Nice idea though…
#3 by Jeff on January 17, 2011 - 2:47 pm
That’s the beauty of the methodology Malc. In the absence of human interference, it has a base reliablity that can’t be questioned. Of course Labour’s rise in support will be greater in some areas than others but that just means that a list MSP won here is cancelled out by a list MSP lost there.
Applying increases and decreases uniformly is the best first step when it comes to interpreting polls. One can then move on to applying local factors (who is second where, Cabinet Ministers more likely to win through, incumbency factors, trams etc etc) but at that point there is an inherent issue because it is no longer cold, hard numbers churning out a prediction but a person with an opinion who may or may not be correct.
I have no problem with the predictor file spitting out Labour being a near miss in Orkney when that appears unlikely. 47% of Scottish voters is about 2m people so they have to live somewhere.
And if Labour win 49% of the regional vote, they will be in with a great shout of having an overall majority, in accordance with how d’hondt is supposed to work.
Nice try at shooting me down though…. 😉
#4 by Malc on January 17, 2011 - 2:58 pm
On May 6th, when your numbers-based predictor is wildly wrong, can I come back and say “I told you so”?!
Uniformity swing doesn’t exist. Its why polls are never bang on – of course sometimes they are close and sometimes they are wildly wrong. On a personal level, I think the 49% and 47% are quite high (I’d have Labour at no more than 40% on both votes, but that’d be a guess, which you don’t like…) but I’m not taking an issue with them at this point.
My point about Orkney was that if your file does have Orkney as a near-miss for Labour (and yes, I think that “unlikely” is putting it mildly!) then that probably indicates that there is something dodgy about the working. And it comes back to the uniform vote thing. If you look at the 2007 figures (which you are using as your starting point) there isn’t a uniform starting point – x party didn’t get y% in EVERY seat. They got b% in Airdrie & Shotts and c% in Dundee West and y% in Stirling.
If you are going to use a uniform idea for 2011, wouldn’t you be better using a uniform idea from 2007 as well? Otherwise I think its apples and oranges (though I appreciate it is that anyway, given one lot is actual votes and the other is guesses/polling data.
#5 by Jeff on January 17, 2011 - 3:12 pm
No you can’t say ‘I told you so’ Malc. It is, or at least it should be, patently obvious that this is a predictor based solely on this poll and not on what any individual ‘thinks’ the election result will be. In the absence of full facts, a statistician can only estimate and extrapolate based on the facts in hand. Assumptions can be overlayed (e.g. local factors and non-uniformity) but I’ve opted not to and I think with good reason.
So, I could base my prediction on your guess of 40% or on a robust poll from TNS-BMRB which says 47%/49% is the way to go.
I also think you’re misunderstanding the file and/or I didn’t explain it properly. My file is taking the 2007 b% share of the vote in Airdrie, the c% in Dundee West and the y% in Stirling for each party and THEN applying the overall uniform swing from 2007-2011. So local differences are taken into account up to a point and I maintain that, in the absence of a full election or more detailed poll, this is the best way to go.
Tell you what, I’ll test the methodology out by starting at the 2003 vote and ‘predicting’ the 2007 vote, posting the result on this blog this week. If it’s out by more than 2 seats for any one party, I’ll buy you a big bottle of whisky. (and not Famous Grouse!)
Also, it’s only a bit of fun….
#6 by Malc on January 17, 2011 - 4:56 pm
Haha. I’d actually take the bet, because I think it will be quite far out. But don’t worry about the bottle…
Fair enough on your first point (ie – that I can’t say “I told you so” based on this poll). But I’d imagine that, even if you used the ACTUAL national share of the vote from the 2011 election and plugged it into your predictor file (as in, after the election) you’d still end up with wide discrepancies (ie – if Labour did in fact poll 49% & 47%, I don’t think they’d end up with 68 seats). That’s actually what I’m trying to say – though granted, I did veer a bit off track criticising the poll…
On your methodology and my “misunderstanding” of it. That was how I understood how you’d done it, and that was my criticism. You are using individual seats from 2007 as your starting point, and a uniform national vote for 2011. That’s my problem with the methodology.
But its moot anyway, I think, because we’re arguing different things. You think you can predict an election based predominantly (solely?) on numbers, formulas and stats. I’m not convinced you can – sometimes a “gut instinct” (whatever that may be) may have to come into play somewhere.
#7 by James on January 17, 2011 - 5:21 pm
Gosh, it’s lovely we have a place to bicker amongst ourselves.. I think Jeff, you’d agree that a proper test would be if the final election result was in line with these percentages but that the overall result wasn’t close to your predictions?
#8 by Jeff on January 17, 2011 - 5:24 pm
Agreed, only if “overall result” means total seats for each party. Unders and overs across regions and constituencies are allowed to net off with each other.
And if bickering isn’t allowed then I’m taking my poll and going home…. 😉
#9 by John Ruddy on January 18, 2011 - 9:46 am
Jeff,
A fascinating analysis – although I do think it should be taken with a huge dollop of salt. Not your findings – I think they’re fairly accurate, if this was the actual share of the vote on May 5th. But the poll is just too good to be true, from a Labour point of view.
At first I thought that TNS-BMRB asked a Westminster voting intention question before hand – which often causes the Labour vote to be overstated, but no, they dont.
The only thing I can think of is that the VAT increase and the duty rise had just happened before the fieldwork was done, thus increasing the anti-Tory feeling (which the Lib Dems are copping some of as well). The story is, perhaps, that the SNP and the Green party are not feeling the benefit, although the SNP are doing well to hold onto their vote after 4 years of Government. At the monent, Labour are getting all the protest votes – the trick will be to convert that feeling of protest into crosses in boxes on May 5th.
Incidently, Jeff, do you have a copy of the spreadsheet available for download? Sounds like its a great piece of excel geekery 🙂
#10 by haarandrime on January 17, 2011 - 2:37 pm
Does anyone think George Galloway will succeed in becoming an MSP.? I’m fairly new to Scotland and still can’t quite fathom the voting process!
#11 by Jeff on January 17, 2011 - 2:58 pm
That’s the million dollar question isn’t it really Haarandrime. My numbers assume Margo or an independent Lothians MSP will get in (though I haven’t checked if she is definitely standing again) but does not assume that George Galloway, or Gail Sheridan for that matter, will win through.
I don’t think he will win to be honest. There have been too many false dawns with independents in the past – John Smeaton, Tommy Sheridan, those chaps from Big Brother. The only successful independents that I can think of are Margo, Denis Canavan and Jean Turner (who needed two attempts and had a strong local issue to revolve around).
I don’t think George will embarrass himself and I think he has the right strategy in targeting Labour FPTP voters who ‘may’ be wasting their second votes, but I don’t think he’ll quite pull it off.
#12 by Doug Daniel on January 18, 2011 - 1:27 am
I’m not sure you can really group John Smeaton and the Big Brother chaps in with Tommy Sheridan, Margo McDonald, Dennis Canavan and Jean Turner. The first are media celebrities, whereas the latter are serious (?) politicians who just happen to be unaffiliated with major parties. Margo and Dennis in particular were already extremely prominent politicians on the scene and it was quite ridiculous that both ended up having to stand as independents in the first place, particularly Canavan who had been the incumbent MP since the mid 70s. Tommy Sheridan obviously made a name for himself opposing the poll tax and had served in the council, and in 1999 there was only really one left-wing party in town to mop up the disillusioned ex-Labour support. Jean Turner is obviously a special case, and much more of a rarity than the more common scenario of a party not realising that the member in question has become popular in their own right, rather than just because they are a member of that party.
I suppose Galloway is a special case to an extent. On the face of it, he’s very much in the vein of Sheridan, being a well-known left-wing figure that would allow disenfranchised Labour supporters to have someone to rally around. However, I don’t think we’ll be seeing socialists in Holyrood again until the SSP, Solidarity and any others like Galloway can swallow their pride and join forces to reach a common goal. Those who supported Sheridan will surely be inclined to vote for Gail Sheridan, under the presumption that she would be a representative for Tommy via proxy. Those who were against him will surely be inclined to vote for the SSP – i.e. exactly what happened last time around. All Galloway is doing is putting another name on the ballot for the socialist vote to be further split and diluted, as he offers absolutely nothing for regular voters of other parties, except for the entertainment value he would add to Holyrood.
Let’s face it, donkey-in-a-red-rosette syndrome in Glasgow is so bad that many voters will not even leave Labour in favour of bona fide socialist parties, if only because they fall for the lies that voting Labour is the only way of avoiding Tories/anti-Glasgow SNP/whoever they’re scaremongering about at any particular time.
Galloway might be better off trying his luck in Edinburgh or maybe even a Dundee homecoming. Perhaps neither has enough tanning-salons for him, though. Although if I’m honest, I suggest that more in the hope that he would nick a good chunk of votes from Labour than for anything else.
#13 by John Ruddy on January 18, 2011 - 10:12 am
I agree with your first two paragraphs, although I wouldnt be surprised if George Galloway does get in on the Glasgow list. He doesnt need a massive number of votes to squeeze in, and if he is targetting Labour voters who might feel their vote is wasted, he could have some success. The cynic in me says that even if he does manage – we still wont have socialists in Holyrood!
I have to say that I am quite angry at some of the derogatory comments aimed at Labour and Labour voters. “Donkey-in-a-red-rosette syndrome” and “Labour’s core Lemmings”, etc. As much as I disagree with the SNP, think they go about things in entirely the wrong way, and am puzzled at how, despite their ability to have totally opposite views depending on who they are opposing – I would never dream of describing their voters as “deluded Braveheart watchers” or say that you could wrap a donkey in the Saltire and stick a yellow & black rosette on it and they’ll still vote for it. Its disrepectful to the representatives, the activists and the voters.
Its that aspect of the SNP followers which makes me dispair most, and makes me reluctant to engage many of them in political debate – any conversation with them usually degenerates in them mud-slinging at me, at Labour, or saying how no one can be a true Scot unless they vote SNP, how I cant be a true Scotsman because I was born in England, etc, etc. Which is a tradegy because perhaps Labour has more policy areas in common with the SNP than with the Lib Dems (and definitely the Tories!) – and maybe even vice versa.
#14 by aonghas on January 17, 2011 - 2:54 pm
Races tend to tighten towards the finish line, so if I had to bet I’d say no chance will Labour get a majority.
However, of all the parties who intend to fix everything by spending more money and passing more laws, I do expect Labour to be the biggest.
#15 by Daniel on January 17, 2011 - 3:48 pm
This would be a horrible result for the Scottish Parliament, although I’m closer to Labour than the SNP I would hate to see and overall majority and no Greens.
With the lack of polling we have nothing else to go on but this. Still it seems to show unusually high support for Labour.. If only we had some more regular polling from different companies!
#16 by Jeff on January 17, 2011 - 3:53 pm
To be fair, I don’t think TNS-BMRB weight their polling so I don’t know what effect that would have.
But if the prospect of no Greens is particularly galling – you know what you can do to right that particular wrong…!
1st vote – who cares, 2nd vote – Green.
#17 by cynicalHighlander on January 17, 2011 - 5:13 pm
Its weighted.
#18 by Jeff on January 17, 2011 - 5:23 pm
Oops, take it back then. Thanks.
#19 by cynicalHighlander on January 17, 2011 - 9:37 pm
From the comments Lab 69 : SNP 46 : Con 8 : LD 6 : Others 0 so your not far off.
#20 by NoOffenceAlan on January 17, 2011 - 8:36 pm
Weighted by gender/age/social class.
But not weighted by how people voted last time, which would have been useful.
#21 by John Ruddy on January 18, 2011 - 9:50 am
I think it would be useful to see how that affects the outturn – perhaps by not as much as you would think. Weighting by how they voted in 2010 might be more interesting – its the most recent actual poll, and people are more likely to recall how they voted then than in 2007.
I think theres a fair number of people who have forgotten how they voted in 2007, depending on how how they voted now (I never voted for that lot – look at how they’re doing now!) which could further reduce the vote share forthe SNP, Tories and the Lib Dems – perhaps unfairly.
#22 by James on January 18, 2011 - 9:55 am
Weighting by 2010 would be a very bad move. People vote differently in Holyrood elections and Westminster elections, so the comparison would be very misleading indeed.
#23 by John Ruddy on January 18, 2011 - 12:01 pm
I said it would be interesting to weight by 2010 vote – not that it would be useful. I’ve often heard that people vote differently in Westminster elections – and the results bear this out. The interesting thing is to find out HOW they vote differently – and then WHY.
#24 by William Brown on January 17, 2011 - 7:40 pm
jeff, I am not equipped to challenge your methodology, but I still think your conclusion is a load of kack, compared with what might happen between now and May.
Miliband now confessing that Labour was going to make cuts may not feed down to the hoi polloi who take their views from the Record/Sun, but I think that Labour could take a big knock over Council Tax.
Gray has not come out with a definitive statement yet, but if his policy in May is to oppose the SNP/Tory planned freeze, then I think he might suffer a huge setback. In that scenario all SNP/Tory election material should show IN BIG LETTERS the percentage increase in each constituency by which Labour would have to raise Council Tax to match the approved budget settlement. I think the amounts revealed would shock many of the people thinking of voting Labour, not perhaps from Labour’s core lemmings, but from Lib/Dems.
Additionally, in Edinburgh the SNP should point out in equally big letters that they voted AGAINST the trams. This is a big issue in Edinburgh and could work against Labour/Tories/LibDems.
So I think there’s still a lot to play for, because Labour has not actually produced any policies just opposed “cuts” generally. It’s squeaky bum time for Gray!
#25 by Jeff on January 17, 2011 - 10:22 pm
Definitely lots to play for. These polls are mere snapshots and have plenty of margin of error of course.
I’m sure the polls on January 2007 were markedly different to the final result of May 2007 and I’m not convinced that a significant number of Scots have had a conversation with themselves over whether they’d like an SNP team lead the next coalition or a Labour one. That may not even happen till April so you’re absolutely right, in relation to the final result the results above may well be “a load of cack”.
On the trams, I’m not convinced the SNP has much to gain. Yes, they were patently against the trams from the beginning but (1) they help run the council and have been tasked with delivering the project, like it or not and (2) not many people vote for whiners. The SNP’s best bet is to run a largely positive campaign and carping about trams doesn’t fit with that strategy.
Definitely agree that Labour arguing for a Council Tax rise will hurt them though and that particular policy isn’t reflected in the polling yet.
#26 by jim jepps on January 18, 2011 - 12:16 am
I’ve spoken to three non-political people in Edinburgh about the trams (how’s *that* for unscientific) and all three of them blamed both Labour *and* the SNP for the mess.
Whether anyone else can capitalise on that is another matter but I don’t think it would be wise for the SNP to bang on about them…
#27 by Indy on January 18, 2011 - 1:28 pm
It may not work to the SNP’s advantage in Edinburgh but it is a good issue for the SNP elsewhere. Glasgow for instance. All of Glasgow’s Labour MSPs voted to spend 500 million on the trams in Edinburgh which are – rightly or wrongly – now widely perceived as being a disaster. Expect that to be repeated as often as Labour complain about GARL.
#28 by John Ruddy on January 18, 2011 - 9:53 am
I think it depends on how a council tax rise is presented. If its “We want a Council tax rise because we dont agree with the SNP’s freeze” then yes, it will hurt Labour.
But if its “We want Councils to be able to increase the CT a little to stop Meals on Wheels being cut, or your Library being closed”, then that might work.
The reasoning behind the proposed ability to increase CT is to offset some of the cuts that are coming through – if Labour can get that message out, it might actually win votes.
#29 by Chris on January 17, 2011 - 7:49 pm
If this poll is accurate, or close to being accurate it looks like the most significant change is a large movement of voters from LibDem to Labour.
I suspect the LibDems will hold on to seats where there is no effective challenge from Labour or SNP, but will suffer everywhere else.
However sometimes you have to believe the evidence in front of your eyes. Are LibDem voters in the countryside to be patronised as rural folk who won’t be angry about the coalition because the MSP went to school with their cousin?
An interestng exercise would be to model the effects of a non-uniform swing. Would it be that significant under the d’hondt system?
#30 by An Duine Gruamach on January 17, 2011 - 9:41 pm
With regard to applying 2007’s numbers to the poll – does this take boundary changes into account?
#31 by Jeff on January 17, 2011 - 10:25 pm
Goof question! Yes, I’m starting with the 2007 notional result as my base. (took a while to enter into Excel but hopefully worth it!)
Pingback: Polls, Damn Polls and Statistics | Set In Darkness
#32 by Doug Daniel on January 18, 2011 - 1:46 am
I don’t believe for a second that any poll which has Labour support at almost 50% can even begin to call itself credible. For that to become reality, we would have had to have just had 4 years of calamity, leading to an overwhelming urge amongst the electorate to say “I’m not a Labour supporter, but nothing this bad happened on their watch – we need them back in power”. We’ve not had that, no matter what Labour try to pin on the SNP.
Polls like this really make me question their existence, as there is absolutely nothing to be learned from this, except that it was a rubbish poll. Once all the polls between now and May are collated together, I dare say this poll will represent the dots that are way out of line with the others, sitting well outside even the most generous margin of error. Labour had one shot at forming a majority government: 1999. They’re not going to get it 12 years on, especially when the SNP can no longer be accused of lacking governmental experience.
#33 by Indy on January 18, 2011 - 9:57 am
The poll may well be right, as many electors are still in Westminster election mode. What is going to be interesting is to see how things shape up over the next few months. I’m starting to think that Labour want to go for an early election. Their strategy is clearly to attack everything the SNP does to create a perception of an incompetent, indecisive, failing government and they will obviously be chuffed to be leading in the polls despite having no policies or programme for government. An early election makes sense for them as it would allow them to capitalise on their good polling figures while minimising the amount of scrutiny that they come under. It’s a pretty short term strategy however as it is clear that they have no real idea what they would do if they were in power.
#34 by Chris on January 18, 2011 - 4:52 pm
How can there be an early election? I don’t understand.
#35 by Indy on January 18, 2011 - 5:49 pm
Other parties vote down the SNP Budget. I don’t really understand the protoco, either but if they vote down the Budget the SNP Govt stands down then the parliament has a period of time to elect another FM – Gray the front runner obviously but it does not seem lilely that other parties would do that months away from a scheduled election. So there is no government therfore an election is trequired and they bring the date forward
#36 by Allan on January 18, 2011 - 7:06 pm
I agree with several of the comentators above, that I don’t think that New Labour will get a majority of 3. Mainly because the Scottish electorate are not really thinking about May or who to vote for, and partially because the only part really campaigning are Labour. My Fiancee got a leaflet last week introducing Wendy Alexander as her local Labour candidate (I’m still waiting for mine… ). One only has to look at the last Westminster election to look at how the polls move in the months before an election, this time last year Cameron was heading for a Tory majority in double figures.
Chris: there can be an early election if the SNP Govenment fall in a vote of confidence and no first minister can be elected by parliament within a set timeframe.
Pingback: Labour in poll position…. maybe « A Burdz Eye View