Polls come and polls go, most of them resulting in politicos attempting to establish how many seats will be won and lost by the various parties, but do they really tell us anything? Malc and I are halfway through our #sp11 regionwatch series so I thought it was time to check if there is any credibility to the results we are putting out there.
To prove this empirically would probably take a few PhDs and a strong dash of John Curtice so, instead, I’ve pulled together what the 2007 predicted result would be using my model, the 2003 detailed results and the 2007 national voteshare for constituency and region.
The regional detail is below but at a top level, and with actuals in brackets, the model would predict a 2007 election result of:
SNP 47 (47)
Labour 45 (46)
Conservatives 18 (17)
Lib Dems 17 (16)
Greens 1 (2)
Margo 1 (1)
All in all, I say that isn’t too shabby. The main failing is that it predicted that an SNP/Tory coalition is possible when infact it wasn’t (by 1 seat). There were several instances of a hundred or so votes being the difference between who won the 7th regional spot (Patrick Harvie in Glasgow for example) so the margin of error in my model is, of course, quite high.
The detailed reasons for differences are below but the main conclusions I take from this are as follows:
First up, it is worthwhile to predict seat numbers based on national voteshare, safe in the knowledge that regional differences here will be largely mapped out by regional differences there.
Secondly, it is worthwhile to reflect the really obvious local factors but not to get carried away. Green co-convener received a poll bump in Glasgow and Alex Salmond turned a notional Lib Dem hold into an SNP gain comfortably. Popular candidates such as Alex Fergusson, Jim Mather and Bruce Crawford also reversed expectations and this could arguably have been predicted if one was close enough to the ground in these areas.
Thirdly, the competition for the 7th regional spot on the list can be fierce. It is here where the election may well be won and lost for many parties.
My final conclusion, and probably the main one, is that baseline numbers are very important. The prime example is Cumbernauld & Kilsyth where Jamie Hepburn on paper only had to win an extra 500 or so votes to win the constituency, but he was operating from an artificial platform as much of the 2003 SNP vote was due to the impressive Andrew Wilson standing there.
So where might the dodgy baselines exist for 2011? Well, the constituencies that have the largest discrepancy between what did happen in 2007 and what was expected to happen are as follows: Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, Paisley South, Gordon, Ochil, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Linlithgow, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon valley, Stirling, Edinburgh East and Airdrie & Shotts. If you are looking for a shock, whatever you perceive a shock to be, I’d look in these constituencies first…
-
Detail and methodology
Central
SNP – 7 (7)
Labour – 8 (8)
Conservative – 1 (1)
Lib Dem – 1 (1)
Green – 0 (0)
A good start. No differences between the predictor model and the actual results in total.
NB – The SNP were predicted to win Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. This loss was made up for in the d’hondt allocation.
Glasgow
SNP – 6 (5)
Labour – 9 (9)
Conservative – 1 (1)
Lib Dem – 1 (1)
Green – 0 (1)
Reason for difference: In the model, the Greens were only 95 votes short of winning a seat (from the SNP) so perhaps a personal vote for Patrick Harvie was not reflected. Note that Patrick was the 7th list MSP so the model really wasn’t so far off here at all.
The FPTP element of the model predicted constituency wins accurately with Nicola Sturgeon winning Govan and Labour wins elsewhere.
Highlands & Islands
SNP – 5 (6)
Labour – 3 (3)
Conservative – 2 (2)
Lib Dem – 5 (4)
Green – 0 (0)
Reason for difference: The model predicted that the Lib Dems would win Argyll & Bute which was won by the SNP.
Lothian
SNP – 5 (5)
Labour – 5 (5)
Conservative – 2 (2)
Lib Dem – 2 (2)
Green – 1 (1)
No difference.
All FPTP seats predicted accurately.
Mid Scotland & Fife
SNP – 6 (6)
Labour – 5 (5)
Conservative – 3 (3)
Lib Dem – 2 (2)
Green – 0 (0)
No difference.
NB – Labour was predicted to win Stirling and Dunfermline West but the SNP and Lib Dems took surprise victories there. These variances then balanced out in the d’hondt allocation on the strength of Labour’s second votes.
North East
SNP – 7 (8)
Labour – 3 (3)
Conservative – 3 (2)
Lib Dem – 3 (3)
Green – 0 (0)
Reason for difference: The SNP was 324 votes away from pinching the 7th seat from the Conservatives in my model.
NB – The Lib Dems were predicted to win Gordon if the model was not adjusted for Alex Salmond standing in this constituency. The SNP was predicted to win Aberdeen Central but Labour managed to cling onto it by 382 votes.
South
SNP – 5 (5)
Labour – 6 (5)
Conservative – 4 (4)
Lib Dem – 1 (2)
Green – 0 (0)
Reason for difference: In my model, Labour pinched the last seat from the Lib Dems by 160 votes, once again showing that it is small margins at the tail end of the d’hondt allocation that can make all the difference.
(NB – The SNP upset the horses here, failing to win any FPTP seats despite being predicted to win 2. Alex Fergusson comfortably held Galloway and Upper Nithsdale for the Tories and Jeremy Purvis scraped through in Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale for the Lib Dems. This impact was corrected through the d’hondt calculator.)
West
SNP – 6 (5)
Labour – 6 (8)
Conservative – 2 (2)
Lib Dem – 2 (1)
Green – 0 (0)
Reason for difference – The SNP were predicted to win Paisley South and West Renfrewshire in my model but, in reality, Labour won them reasonably comfortably, perhaps highlighting the relative impenetrability of the West. These represented two clear gains for Labour between model and actuals as Labour did not win a regional MSP in either set of results.
That leaves the gain for the SNP over the Lib Dems and this seems to be simply due to a poor turnout for the Lib Dems in the West, receiving only 22,515 votes to my modelled 30,217. If this trend has continued, it is a clear reason why Hugh O’Donnell has decided to abandon Tavish’s sinking longboat.
(As a quick overview of my method:
Constituency – I take the individual number of votes for each candidate in each constituency from 2003, divide by the national voteshare from 2003 for the relevant party and then multiply by the 2007 national voteshare to get a new number of votes. In true First Past the Post tradition, whoever receives the highest votes for each constituency is then nominated as the winner)
Regions – The number of votes in each region in 2003 is divided by the national voteshare in the list vote for the relevant party and then multiplied by the actual national voteshare for 2007. The d’hondt allocation method is then applied using these number of votes and the number of FPTP seats predicted as being won in the first stafe of the model)
#1 by Paul on March 29, 2011 - 1:32 pm
Given this, the boundary change that, I think, is more in favour of the SNP, the latest poll, I’m now wondering how close Fiona Hyslop is to winning this seat? And whether this helps the LibDems or Greens in the Lothians, or just means that a List seat will goto Labour instead?
When you come to do the other regions in your predictathon ™, will you be using the latest poll or continuing with the same poll for consistency?
#2 by Jeff on March 29, 2011 - 1:55 pm
Thanks Paul. Obviously the 2003 data into 2007 has to use the old boundaries so there is a bit of trouble grossing the conclusions up into 2011.
On Linlithgow in particular, on the old boundaries, Fiona Hyslop lost out by 1,150 votes in 2007 but ‘should’ have won by 2,493 votes per my model. In the 2007 notional results, Fiona is now only down by 294 votes.
There’s two ways of looking at this: the Labour MSP is so particularly wanted or the SNP candidate is so particularly unwanted by the constituency, relative to the rest of Scotland, that the SNP has less of a chance of winning in 2011…
… or, the SNP’s baseline should actually be higher going into this contest because 2007 saw something of a blip and, as a result, the SNP has an even greater chance of winning this seat. (Note of course, this is excluding the fact that Fiona’s time as a Minister can only help her chances)
As for other regions, I tend to change the poll to reflect the most uptodate results and I’ll continue to do so going forward. As I’ve said before, I reserve the right to change past ‘predictions’ when the national polls change significantly (as they seem to be doing in the SNP’s favour….)
#3 by Peter on March 29, 2011 - 2:08 pm
You say that the SNP won Dunfermline West, in fact it was the Lib Dems (Jim Tolson). They then lost a list seat, which went to the SNP, meaning no difference in MS&F.
#4 by Jeff on March 29, 2011 - 2:13 pm
Thanks Peter, I did actually mean to add “and Lib Dems” which I guess I never got around to. Have updated now.
As you say, no difference once all seats allocated.
#5 by flying train on March 29, 2011 - 2:14 pm
Jeff
i would be interested therefore in your conclusions re local campaigning.
i am not saying i believe this, but If the UNS model get so close to the actual result (with only a handful of seats being different), what is the point in running a campaign. If the national vote share accurately predicts who will win what seats, what are the hundreds or thousands of political activists really doing?
Is it actually the national campaign that effects how people vote and local campaigns and factors make little real difference?
#6 by Jeff on March 29, 2011 - 2:24 pm
Good question Flying Train but here’s one back your way – Does the national voteshare affect local voting or do local campaigns affect the national voteshare?
My belief is that the efforts put in by SNP and Labour ‘on the ground’ largely cancel each other out but if one side were to stop, then that hands the other an advantage. Did SNP do a sterling job in Stirling or did Labour just blow it? Either way, something ‘local’ mattered to defy expectations. For Green, Conservatives anfd Lib Dems, the limiting factor is money and people I would have thought but the consideration is no less important.
There is some analysis somewhere (can’t remember where) that says a person is x% more likely to vote for a candidate if they receive a leaflet, y% more likely if they shake the candidate’s hand and z% more likely if the candidate kisses their baby. In other words, local campaigning matters, and doubtlessly shapes the national voteshare.
#7 by Alex on March 29, 2011 - 3:24 pm
You have made a very good point there jeff, and one that I think needs a bit of thought.
As a starter though.
The libs have been (in)famous for the amount of leaflets they put out and there is some strong, more recent anecdotal evidence to suggest it does them very little good. For example, in my own seat of Edin South at the 2010 GE, they (and the tories) consistently flooded the constituency with their leaflets. It made very little difference. The swing was tiny compared with what they had expected considering Fred Macintosh had been campaigning in the seat for 4 years and they had convincingly (though with a smaller lab -> Lib swing than other lib – lab marginals) held the equivalent SP seat in 2007 (increasing their majority somewhat).
Also, from what I have heard re Barnsley and Oldham, the libs flooded the constituencies with leaflets again. Yes mood was against them, but one might think if your ref above is true, this would make a difference. Numerous people have reported signs on doors asking for no more lib leaflets.
America / Australia – they run campaigns on much more of a ‘higher’ level than us. In this I don’t mean the quality necessarily, but within the channels they try to connect with. It is far more media driven, big events and grander picture. It does not seem to do them any harm.
Given the current state of the parties and their lack of resources, I don’t feel there is such a great ‘ground’ campaign going on as people seem to believe. Yes all the parties campaign. I have been out night after night knocking on doors, but within a campaign we still may only be hitting 50% voter ID and even then a lot of this is old data. I think a campaign would be lucky to have 10 very regular (3 or 4 times per week) local activists knocking on doors, and when it is commonly agreed that one person in a group of 5 or 6 hits about 10 contacts an hour, well you can do the maths regarding constituency size. These contacts will also be a mix of uncontacted and contacted, so you can see the problem.
I think we sometimes over-estimate what the ground campaign actually does. Yes it makes a difference, but I feel in the age of 24 hour news, the internet etc etc, most voters make their minds up based on the national picture and then maybe adjust to local factors (tactical voting, particculary popular / unpopular candidate / elected member). I would love to see a test of this (ie where one party runs a ‘ground ‘ campaign and anther does not and then compare against UNS), but I feel it would not maybe be as great a difference as a lot of people would suspect.
#8 by cynicalHighlander on March 30, 2011 - 12:31 am
Hunt the LDs.
#9 by Richard on March 30, 2011 - 10:51 am
Jeff – have you looked at all at the impact of having less spoilt papers this time round, compared to the confusion last time?
If I recall correctly, there were a number of seats where the number of spoilt papers was greater than the winners majorities due to the AMS/STV imbroglio. Hopefully this time these votes will be counted – are there some seats where these votes could make the difference?
#10 by Indy on March 30, 2011 - 10:47 pm
Success on the ground – and the focus of Labour and the SNP’s campaigning – is all about voter ID. If you don’t know who your voters are how can you make sure they turn out and vote on the day? Because when a constituency reaches the tipping point and it’s just a thousand or less votes in it you must identify every supporter you can and get their vote. That’s the basic purpose of chapping on doors. And it becomes even more ineresting when people have two votes.