Mr Smithson - the horse

This is Mr Smithson - the race-horse that is owned by a syndicate of PB followers. It's pictured here in the parade ring just before its first outing last week at Musselburgh - a race that saw it coming in second at 14/1. Those who backed it each way did very nicely.

We'll keep you up to date here on PB2 about its progress and where it is running next.

Hung Parliament Revisited

A PB2 guest slot by Rod Crosby

Discussions of the prospect of a hung parliament have probably caused more disagreements here than any other topic. The preponderance of opinion seems to be that the Tories are very likely to win a majority. All things are possible, but before one commits to a position an objective analysis is called for.

What is the Electoral System saying?
The capacity of FPTP to deliver an overall majority is entirely dependent on two factors – its exaggeration when translating votes into seats, and the number of third party MPs.

The first has been in long-term decline since the demise of the “cube-law” in the 1950s, although it has recovered slightly since 1992 and has now stabilised at around a “square-law.” This change, due to the decline in the number of marginals, means that fewer seats now change hands between Labour and Conservative for a given shift in votes, or swing.

The second has seen the number of MPs not aligned with Labour or Conservative grow from just 8 in 1955 to no fewer than 92 in 2005. This change, due to the rise in the LibDems and Nationalists, and the de-coupling of Northern Ireland from the mainland party system, means that to gain an overall majority Labour or Conservative now need a far larger lead in seats over each other than they did in the past.



Combined, these two factors have dramatically altered the British FPTP system from one where hung parliaments were extremely unlikely to one where they are now increasingly likely.

The rôle of Electoral Bias
The preceding analysis takes no account of electoral bias – the tendency of the system to favour one party over another, other things being equal. In the 1950s there was a modest pro-Tory bias, but by 1966 this had disappeared, and for the next 25 years the system treated the two big parties roughly equally. In 1992 that changed dramatically. Despite obtaining a thumping lead in votes, John Major was rewarded with a majority insufficient to last a full parliament. Tactical voting, and to a lesser degree regional effects, had swung the system significantly towards Labour. And rather than this being an aberration - on the contrary - the anti-Tory bias increased in 1997, 2001 and 2005. It is notable that, but for electoral bias, there would have been a hung parliament in 2005. Boundary changes and a likely small fall in the total number of third-party MPs may reduce this bias fractionally in 2010, but as the following graph shows, the Tories will probably need about 57% of the two-party vote to achieve a majority – a huge handicap only narrowly exceeded in 2005. However, continuing demographic shifts may also improve Labour’s position slightly, relative to the 2005 notional figures, meaning that in practice the Tories could be no better off than in 2005.



In a nutshell, the hung parliament zone has widened from a crack to a chasm, while the power of the system to propel a party across it has simultaneously weakened. Worryingly for the Tories, electoral bias has now shifted the chasm almost entirely into what would otherwise be their winning territory.

Cycles and Volatility
A complicating factor, in arriving at an estimate of the chance of a hung parliament is that the political pendulum does not move in a clockwork fashion. Parties have their great triumphs and abject disasters, and often remain in power for more than one term.


The black line represents an idealised electoral system, with no electoral bias and assumes a swing to the opposition at each election, adjusted for increasing volatility over time. The yellow line is more realistic, incorporating electoral bias and memory of the previous election result.

The first big leap in the chance of a hung parliament came at the February 1974 election, which did in fact produce one, although the objective chance, given a small pro-Labour bias and the closeness of the previous result, was somewhat smaller. It was the unexpectedly minuscule swing to Labour that in reality delivered that inconclusive result. For different reasons, two subsequent elections - October 1974 and 1992 - also came extremely close to producing hung parliaments.

Of course, politics often confounds even the best statistical estimates. In 1983, had there been a swing to Labour, a hung parliament was quite likely - instead there was a swing to the government, resulting in a Tory landslide. Again, in 1997, the system was primed to deliver a hung parliament, but the unprecedented, massive swing to Labour rendered the estimate moot. On the other hand, the graph shows that in 1987 and 2001 the Opposition were simply starting from too far behind to make a hung parliament at all likely, which turned out to be an accurate prediction. But we can see that in 2010 we are once again facing a “peak probability” of a hung parliament. The numbers say about a 67% chance, and we can be pretty confident there will be no swing to Labour to upset that estimate.

What are the Polls saying?
Since, in the final analysis, a hung parliament turns on a single seat we should not be surprised that individual polls give a Yes/No answer, rather than a Maybe. That may be misleading. Of the 335 polls since 2005 exactly 50% of them have indicated a hung parliament, while only 28% have indicated a Tory majority and 22% a Labour majority. That is an unprecedented number of polls indicating a hung parliament.

The following graph visualises the polls. About half the time, we see “islands” of majority government emerging from the Stygian waters of a hung parliament, only to be submerged again. The Tory archipelago seemingly peaked in 2008, and one could be forgiven for thinking they look poised to slip beneath the waves again sometime soon…




The median forecast of the polls in this parliament is Con 288, Lab 277, LD 47, which if reflected in the result could see Labour remain in office with the LibDems as Kingmakers.

Conclusion
In 1951, just a 1% swing saw a Labour majority government replaced by a Tory majority government. Electoral bias, increased third party MPs, and the changing nature of the system mean that to obtain a majority at the next election the Tories require at least a 6% swing, possibly more. Only one of the last sixteen elections has seen such a swing. The polls are narrowing - another fractional shift and the Tories fall back into the NOM zone. Whether you examine the electoral system or the polls, a hung parliament still appears to this poster to be the odds-on favourite.

Rod Crosby is a regular contributor to the main site - Politicalbetting.com

We are having very serious problems on the main site

We do not know what is happening but it has not been possible for large parts of the day for people to get onto the main site.

This is not the normal server pressure that happens from time to time.

I have no idea what the cause is - but please check here for the latest information.

..and please use the thread here for our ongoing discussion.

Temporary Shelter

It seems the main site has gone down briefly

Double Carpet is contacting Mike and Robert Smithson, and I expect we'll see everything back to normal shortly.

Keep talking here in the meantime.

Morus

Sorry - the main site is down

Marf's cartoon is about the big political story of the day - the RBS's record losses and the £650,000 a year pension that is being paid to the 50 year olf former Chief Executive - Sir Fred Goodwin.

Will Royal Mail still be Royal?

I've just called the Ministry of Justice with a nagging thought.

Royal Mail was created by Royal Charter, I believe by Henry VIII. Presumably, selling off a segment to private ownership would require that the Royal Charter be amended. I looked for previous examples of private sector organisations with Royal Charters, and the only ones I could come up with were incorporated as private organisations with a Royal Charter. Now they tend to be used only for public sector organisations, professional bodies, universities and charities.

Royal Charter is dealt with by the Privy Council.

However, the Royal Charter is not the reason that Royal Mail is called Royal. The RSPCA used to be the SPCA, until it was 'made Royal'. The use of the descriptor 'Royal' in an organisation or company's name is determined by the Department of Constitutional Affairs-as-was, which is now the Royal and Hereditary Branch at the DCA (now subsumed within the Ministry of Justice).

I just called them directly, and they didn't seem to appreciate my call, and told me that I had to speak to the MoJ Press Office. Central Government Departments have very nice people answering the phones in their Press Offices, so they have said they will get back to me.

My questions were:

Should Royal Mail be partially or wholly privatised, will it still be permitted to use the term 'Royal' in its name?

What activities need to be undertaken for this to remain permissable?

What actions have been taken by Government Departments, in particular the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, to address this issue?

The Press Office at the MoJ say they will get back to me.

UPDATE: I've just spoken to a lovely lady at the Privy Council Office, and they assure me that the Royal Mail doesn't have a Royal Charter. Either it never did (though I thought it was established with one), or it was revoked, perhaps when it became a publicly-limited company, limited by guarentee of the Government.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Confirmed: ComRes Tory lead down to 1%

Labour has narrowed the Tories’ poll lead to just one point as the “Brown bounce” continues, according to a ComRes survey for The Independent.

It puts the Tories on 37 per cent (down two points on last month), Labour on 36 per cent (up five points), the Liberal Democrats on 17 per cent (up one point) and other parties on 10 per cent (down four points). If repeated at the next General Election it would give Labour an overall majority of 10 in the House of Commons.

The survey suggests that the measures in last week’s Pre-Budget Report, including a 45p in the pound new top rate of tax for those earning more than £150,000, have bolstered Labour’s support among the party’s core working class supporters. Labour’s ratings among the DE bottom social group have risen from 35 per cent to 51 per cent over the past month . In contrast, Tory support has dropped from 39 per cent to 25 per cent among this group.

There are other signs that Labour “identifiers” are returning to the fold The number of natural Labour supporters who say they will vote for the party has risen from 81 per cent to 87 per cent since last month.