A Moving Target – How Well Do You Know Your Neighbours?

How long have you lived in your home? It’s not a trick question but it’s worth thinking about how often people move house when considering making comparisons between polls especially when there are five years between elections.


In this quick post I just want to show the results of a little research I’ve done into the electoral roll on a single district council ward in the part of the South Norfolk constituency, where I live. I’ve got hold of the electronic electoral register between 2003 and the present day.

With a little jiggery-pokery on Access I’ve been able to use the unmatched-records query function to work-out exactly how many people move each year in the electoral ward.

The results are going to surprise you, especially when the ward in question is a rural one made-up of six villages which I’d have thought had a stable population. The ward comprises 2105 electors this year.

Parish Number of Electors
VillageA - 383
VillageB - 1058
VillageC - 50
VillageD - 205
VillageE - 138
VillageF - 271
Total - 2105

In the table below, I’m going to show how many brand new electors appear on the roll each December. It’s more than you’d think. 2003 is the base year with the changes to the electoral roll printed for the subsequent years


About 175 electors seem to be changing each year. That's about 8.4% of the electorate.

With the figures to hand I thought it would be useful to see the changes in the roll since the last General Election in 2005.

On the face of it it look like the total number of new electors was 880 or 42% of the total. That’s quite a lot but then I realised that some people, for example in the old-folks-home, have moved-in and-out in the period 2005-2009. I’ll call this a double-churn so these people need to be discounted when considering the nett change from 2005-2010 position so we can accurately assess the effect on the General Election.

So, in a separate analysis I worked out the five-year change from 2005 to 2010 and it turns out that the difference is 655 electors or 31.1% of the total. About a third.


The percentage changes for each village are printed below and they all show a pretty consistent churn rate. It’s not as if one village has a particularly big churn. They’re all pretty much of a muchness. About a third each.



So, in this sleepy rural area just under a third of the electorate has changed since the last General Election in May 2005.

Wow.

People have moved-away. Others have moved-in. Some have died. Some have divorced. Some have married [name changes are included in my churn figures]. We’ve had some youngsters come onto the roll for the first time. A few have moved within the village from a larger house to a smaller one and vice-versa but the bottom line is that a third of the roll in this countryside ward has churned in five years.

The churn’s got to be bigger in University towns, in areas where there’s been mass immigration and where there’s been large-scale housing development. You know, it might be in these urban areas that there’s been a 50% change in the electorate in five years. I can’t say what the exact figure here would be but I’d call it significant. And it’s another reason not to rely on the UNS. With upto 50% churn, what's a few percent on the UNS between friends anyway?

:puts on tin hat:

Okay, this is an analysis for a single ward, in a single local authority area, which, in turn, makes-up just one part of a Parliamentary Constituency. But these facts don’t lie.

So, look around you. Over the last five years have either you or your two immediate neighbours moved? Has one house out of three changed hands? I thought so. Just think about it when betting on narrow swings on the 2005 result. And when the papers keep going on about UNS, you'll know that as long as democracy relies on one-man-one-vote, it pays to think where those 'men' live.

Bunnco - Your Man On The Spot

Bahrain: post-race analysis and title thoughts

Mixed bag regarding the tips, overall I’m afraid it was a loss. Barrichello scraped into the points, but my podium suggestion was laughably optimistic. Once again, I tipped Massa to come top and he came second. Naughty Brazilian.

I made a few notes during the latter stages of the race, which I think are of importance. The Red Bull uses a Renault engine (mostly because they left it too late last season to switch to a Mercedes) which apparently is more fuel efficient than the Ferrari, giving it a 10kg weight advantage at the start of the race. It can’t be said it’s a certainty, but the start saw Vettel get away very easily which may be due, in part, to the fuel effect.

Sticking with engines, the Cosworth (which Williams use) is faster in a straight line than the Ferrari, if Barrichello’s easy overtaking of Buemi is anything to go by. The McLaren is also super fast in a straight line, but that’s because of the cunning F-vent in the nose.

Interestingly, the cars never got close to qualifying pace and were always, even on fumes, 4-5s or more slower.

As some suspected, the Red Bull had reliability issues (as it did last season). But for that Vettel would’ve won, or at least come second. As it is, he came 4th after a rather lacklustre challenge from Rosberg. The Red Bull’s soft tyres seem to degrade slightly after 10-15 laps or so, and the Ferraris were so hot they had to avoid slipstreams to stay cool. Obviously, Bahrain is a hot place so this may not be an issue elsewhere.

Also, Bahrain is not a circuit that’s too hard on the tyres. At circuits where this is the case, I wonder if we’ll see multiple stops. There wasn’t much overtaking on the track, which the no refuelling rule was intended to encourage. To be frank, the race was rather dull, with large gaps between most cars and little excitement.

So, what did we learn? The McLaren’s tyres didn’t disintegrate after six laps, as I thought they might. I had been tempted to tip laying Hamilton for the podium at 2.9, but in the morning the odds had lengthened so I didn’t. In addition, Hamilton was markedly better than Button in both race and qualifying. We’ll see if this continues at tracks with higher rates of tyre wear.

Red Bull didn’t get much practice in, and didn’t top the timesheets until qualifying. The car also showed very good, consistent race pace, but being fast means sod all if the reliability isn’t there. It’s just one race, and it might be bad luck, but given what happened last season I think this indicates the team is fast but need better reliability.

Ferrari are fast and reliable, but they did have an issue with overheating. Not all circuits are in deserts, but quite a few are in hot spots. Massa had some issue or other with his, but was still comfortably second, and I think the two Ferrari chaps are pretty evenly matched.

Mercedes continue to underwhelm. It is interesting, though, that Rosberg was 0.5s (consistently) faster than Schumacher in practice and qualified better by 2 places, but only finished 1 place ahead of him. Not yet proven whether Rosberg can cut it at the sharp end on race day. Schumacher needs to up his game.

So, how is the Driver’s Title shaping up? Massa’s now at 8.6 for the title, which remains too long, and Alonso is ridiculously short at 2.34. We have a stack of races (it’s 19, or something crazy like that) and we’ve only had one finished. Vettel’s probably a little too short at 4.7, and Hamilton’s interesting at 8. Not sure why he’s shorter than Massa given the McLaren was slower in practice, slower in qualifying and slower in the race. Oh, and both McLarens finished behind both Ferraris.

I didn’t tip anyone for the Constructor’s, regarding it as very hard to call. Ferrari are at 1.76, which seems rightish. Red Bull are at 3.85, which may be a little long, though I’m not going to back them at those odds. McLaren are surprisingly short at 3.55, and Mercedes are 9.6, which looks about right.

So, where to next? Australia, in a fortnight. Quite unfairly, the 3rd practice session finishes at 4am, with qualifying from 6am, so I’ll probably do the pre-qualifying article on Friday rather than Saturday, with the pre-race on Saturday and the analysis on Sunday (which hopefully won’t include Massa coming second whenever I tip him). We’ve seen how the race goes (boringly) with no refuelling, and there’s some data regarding the recent Australian GP results for the race and qualifying so that’ll give me something to get my teeth into in the meantime.

Morris Dancer

Bahrain: pre-race

I feel a bit moronic about missing Vettel. The lack of Red Bull practice times that were speedy made me discount him, though he was (as I pointed out) the best of the top drivers in qualifying last year and the most consistent qualifier in 2009. Not too surprised Massa beat Alonso.

I missed Q3, as I was out, but decided to watch it on the iPlayer to see what tyres the runners and riders qualified on. This season every driver (in the top 10) must start the race on the same quartet of tyres that they qualified on. This introduces a tactical element, as softer tyres are often faster, affording superior grid position, but hard ones are more durable, extending the time a car can run with heavy fuel and thus heavy workload on the tyres before pitting is necessary.

This matters because a car still needs a substantial window to pit and be out ahead of the back markers. If a top 8 driver is behind a Lotus, HRT or Virgin they’ll lose a great deal of time. The Ferraris and Button may be best-placed in this regard throughout the season.

It seems all the top 10, save Sutil, got their laps on soft tyres which will degrade rapidly but be faster initially in the race.

In the last 3 years there has been relatively little movement from the starting lineup to the final positions in the race. It’s not an Interlagos, where there can be tons of overtaking. The first corner is the slowest, and into it will be going 24 cars that are longer and slower than any the race has seen for many years. I would be surprised if there were not several drivers running off the track and even a couple out of the race from corner 1.

As well as Vettel, Massa and Alonso are the best here. I have grave doubts about Hamilton. The McLaren is not as fast as might have been expected and he is known for shredding tyres. There are some concerns regarding the reliability of the Red Bull. The Ferrari is fast and is thought to be reliable.

Barrichello is also interesting. He can manage tyres but as he’s 11th he doesn’t have to start the race on the set he qualified on.

Bear in mind we have no idea just how the fuel loads will work regarding tyre wear, number of pit stops, brake wear, reliability etc. I was tempted to try and sit this one out, so if you’re unsure because of all the rule changes you might prefer to just watch the race rather than risk your money.

After sleeping on it and letting the markets get up to speed, here are my tips:
Massa to win at 5.2. Vettel torments me. He’s the fastest driver, I believe, and has a good car but the Red Bull may well be unreliable in the long run and Massa is very very good at Bahrain. I do believe 4/1 is too long for a second place man who won the race in 2008 and 2007 and outperformed his much favoured team mate in qualifying.

I’ve also decided to have two bets on Barrichello, following what Ted Kravitz said (something I was prompted to recall at http://carons-musings.blogspot.com/2010/03/f1-behold-march-of-pregnant-elephants.html). Barrichello starts 11th, which means he gets to use whatever tyres he likes. The top 9 are all on softs, and Sutil’s on hard, but used, tyres. It really is very difficult to see how this will play out, so the cautious amongst you may prefer to just watch Bahrain and see how tyre degradation and the changing fuel loads affect things.

For those with money to burn or who are feeling more adventurous, I’ve backed Barrichello at 1.95 to get points. For that, he needs just to make just a single place, so if any of the top 10 crash, have tyre wear issues or have a bad start it’ll pay off.

I’ve also put a smaller amount on him to get a podium at 18. This is pretty speculative, but there are a few ways it could work out. A safety car could bunch up the pack, and as he’s on hard tyres I imagine heat would be less of an issue, likewise degradation, and he’s unlikely to have pitted before most others so he won’t be at the back of the queue. Turn 1 may well see a pile up (a lot of long, slow cars in a slow, tight corner) which could collect Barrichello, but he’s a veteran driver and hopefully he’d stay clear whilst others get an early shower. We also don’t know just how advantageous the hard tyre (if they are advantageous) will prove for Barrichello, but having the choice of a new tyre will undoubtedly help him.

Bit of an inauspicious start yesterday. Miffed Massa came second, but I did have an uncertain start to 2009 as well, and that was easier to predict than the start of 2010. Let’s hope there’s a great race, with Massa winning and Barrichello second.

Morris Dancer

Bahrain: pre-qualifying

Practice sessions are handy for some guidance regarding times for cars and drivers, but this is clouded by the variable temperature, rubbering in of the track and different tyres/fuel loads.

In P1, the Force India of Sutil surprising topped the timesheets, followed by Alonso. Button and Hamilton were evenly matched, Webber beat Vettel by 0.7, but that must be due to fuel. Massa was a good 4th, Kubica surprised in 3rd (fuel effect, I think). Biggest surprise was Rosberg being 0.5s faster than Schumacher, a feat repeated in P2 and he beat Schumacher in P3 as well. According to BBC commentators, this is because the Merc tends towards understeer, which Rosberg loves and Schumacher hates. If this changes then Schumacher may get the uppet hand.

The Mercs and McLarens topped the timesheets in P2, when most seemed to be trying out heavy fuel loads. Hamilton managed to shred a set of hard tyres in 4 laps. If that happens in the race he’ll be stopping more often than a narcoleptic jogger. Vettel was 5th, Ferrari’s down in 7th and 9th.

Alonso topped P3, then Rosberg, Webber, Schumacher, Vettel, Massa, Button with Hamilton in 12th. However, Hamilton had an issue with one of his wheels which prevented him having a low fuel, soft tyre qualifying simulation run.

Naturally my pre-qualifying posts will focus on the qualifying markets (pole, reaching Q3) but I’ll have an eye on the others as well, just in case something stands out. It’s the first race, variable fuel has made sifting testing and practising for useful data difficult, so I thought I’d check Bahrain’s last three results to see if there are any extra pointers for qualifying.

Last year (of the big boys) Vettel was top (3rd) followed by Button and Hamilton. However, worth remembering Ferrari had a dog of a car that year. In 2008, Massa and Raikonnen were 2nd and 4th, with Hamilton and Kovalainen in 3rd and 5th. And in 2007 it was, from pole, Massa, Hamilton, Raikonnen and Alonso. Disregarding last year, when Ferrari made their brake discs from chocolate and their car was powered by the motor from a 2CV, this has been a pretty good track for Ferrari generally and Massa in particular. Alonso’s clearly regarded as the top driver by most, though I think it’s closer than most suspect.

I found this very difficult to try and call. Raikonnen beat Massa in most of the 2007 practices yet still lost out on pole, but Alonso’s looking very good. So, I decided to back both, Alonso at 3.25 and Massa at 6.8. First tips of the season (for a weekend), so a bit nervous but hopefully it’ll work out.

I was looking at backing Kubica for reaching Q3, but he’s only 1.3 which is far, far too low. I’d want 5 at least.

Anyway, that’s it for now. Qualifying starts at 11am. My pre-race post will be later than usual because I’m off out for lunch, but I imagine I’ll have the pre-race article up by late afternoon or early evening.

Morris Dancer

Welsh seats -- there's gold in them thar hills

Having looked at the Scottish seats, I feel confident enough to move onto Wales. My local knowledge of Wales is even more compelling than Scotland: I once visited Conwy Castle, I had a single trip with work for the day to Cardiff and I went on a (very memorable) stag weekend to Barmouth, just outside Aberystwyth. I'm sure you're all suitably impressed.

I do not propose, therefore, to say much about the intricacies of each seat, but to analyse the swings needed, the markets and to draw some inferences. There seem to be some really good prices in Wales and I'm going to take a lot of talking out of that conclusion.

I have ignored those seats where one party has crushingly short odds and each party where its odds in a seat are very long (except where it is on the list of another party’s target seats). Once again, I’ve listed these seats in ranking of odds, and included the swing. What do the markets seem to be saying? Well, they seem to be confident of quite a few Conservative gains.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ASgi8eZw-4q1ZGRkcXR2ZmdfMTZrZDJ0Y2toZA&hl=en

The Tories must be hoping to add to their three Welsh seats. By the time that you get to Clwyd South, they will need just under a 10% swing. For that, the best price that you can get is 11/8. I suggest that is not that exciting a prospect.

Interestingly, the market assumption in England that Lib Dem seats will hold out better than Labour seats against the Tories seems not to apply very strongly. The two Lib Dem seats are a little lower on the list than we might expect if they were Labour seats, but only a little. Perhaps these are two unusually weak Lib Dem MPs. Certainly Lembit Opik in Montgomeryshire has a reputation to live down.

Turning to the Lib Dems, every picture tells a story:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ASgi8eZw-4q1ZGRkcXR2ZmdfMThxanRkOW5jcA&hl=en

First, the Lib Dems don’t have many realistic targets in Wales. Secondly, all such targets are in Labour seats. Thirdly, the markets seem, shall we say, optimistic about Lib Dem chances in their few targets. Are the Lib Dems really going to get an 11% swing in Newport East (a seat where they are only a few hundred ahead of the Conservatives) and a 7% swing in Swansea West? The polling evidence for this possibility is sparse and certainly doesn't justify the short odds on the Lib Dems doing so.

On the other hand, the markets are surprisingly gloomy about the Lib Dems chances of retaining their seats. The best-priced odds in Cardiff Central are frankly insulting to the local MP. Ladbrokes quote the Lib Dems' chances in this seat at 1/33 and that seems far more realistic to me than the odds that all the other bookies quote on this seat. Labour would have to play out of their skins to take this seat. As we shall see, they probably have their hands full elsewhere.

I've already noted how Lembit Opik doesn't feel much love from punters. To be quoted at only 2/5 to avoid an adverse swing of 11.4% is astounding. Has he really blotted his copybook that much? Local knowledge in a seat like this is everything, but these odds look very generous at face value. The best Conservative price is 11/4, so it is possible to back both and make a profit - no one else stands an earthly.

Plaid Cymru are in contention in a surprising number of seats:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ASgi8eZw-4q1ZGRkcXR2ZmdfMTlmOWtrYjVjYg&hl=en

Arfon, while notionally Labour, has a sitting Plaid MP. But look at the odds in Llanelli - 6/4 to get a swing of over 10%? You have to put a lot of faith in their ability to convert Welsh Assembly results into Westminster votes for that. I don't.

Historically, Plaid Cymru have flattered to deceive at Westminster elections. There isn't much sign in the polls that they will do amazingly well. I would prefer to be betting against them than for them.

This brings me to what I regard as the bonanza, Labour prices:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ASgi8eZw-4q1ZGRkcXR2ZmdfMTdjNHRjemJkOQ&hl=en

Some of these are incomprehensible unless you assume Labour is going to be hammered and that the Welsh Assembly and EU election results are going to be repeated. Even then, some of the prices are barely comprehensible.

Cardiff West, Llanelli, Newport East and Wrexham all look like complete steals at 1/2. Can you see more than one of these falling? I can't. I doubt whether any of them will. Look at the swings required. In Wrexham and Newport East, there are a multiplicity of challengers as well. Swansea West at 10/11 also looks great value, when you consider that the challenger is the Lib Dems, who have been languishing in Wales.

I am more wary where the Conservatives are the challengers to Labour, since they do appear to have made progress in Wales. Even there, many seats have no tradition of voting Conservative. Progress is likely to be slower than in returning English heartlands.

Finally, Ynys Mon is a seat I would like to know much more about. Plaid fancy their chances there, but they fancied their chances there in 2005 and were disappointed. Is the 5/2 on Labour worth having? My spider sense tells me that it might be.

antifrank

Double or Quits – Brown bets the farm on St George’s Day

Today was the day in which I was convinced that the budget would be held paving the way for an immediate dissolution of Parliament tomorrow and the commencement of the shortest-possible 17-working-day campaign to Thursday April 8th, when Brown reasoned many Tory voters in marginal seats would be on holiday during Easter Week. Sorry. I got it wrong.



During the Norwich North by-election campaign I got to bump into quite a few leading personalities from the various parties but it was a chance conversation with a senior Tory that suggested that Labour's election tactic would be to hold a budget and then immediately call the election without the inconvenience of a Finance Act debate in Parliament, when the budget figures would unravel.

So, back on 1st August when the Norwich dust had settled I started to look at the dates. My mistake was to assume that an election date would be chosen that allowed a budget to take place before the election yet allowing a Finance Act debate to take place afterwards in April having allowed time for the delays for the swearing-in of new MPs. I figured the whole job would be knocked-off by the first week in May.

I concluded that, particularly with the coincidence of Easter, the budget would be delivered on March 10th, one of the earliest practical dates. As it happens of course, the budget date has been announced on March 10th one of the latest practicable dates for delivery on March 24th. So what went wrong?

For ages, it looked like my insight was correct. The PBR was set for 9th December and a budget cannot be held within 3 months of that. So it looked like a 10th March budget was ‘on’. And I’m sure that was part of the plan in Whitehall. A March 10th Budget gave ‘options’. And that’s what politics is all about.

And then in February when it became clear that the first quarter’s economic figures would be severely knocked by the loss of 2 weeks output to the snow and ice and the 1st quarter’s stats being released on St George’s Day, it seemed that hanging-on for May 6th was very risky.

So, when the polls appeared to narrow and the sense of momentum seemed to be swinging towards Labour, on Valentines Day I updated my August analysis in 'Two Stags Lock Horns, Budget or Bust'.

In that article, I made a passing reference to the feud between Chancellor and Prime Minister that seemed to determine the election date. Who would be most dominant? Darling: the man to choose the budget date or Brown: the man to choose the election date. That day, Darling announced in the Telegraph that there would be a budget thus scotching talk of a March 25th poll. He boxed the PM in. With Brown on the rack from Bullygate, Darling was on-top.

The fact that the PM today announced the budget date rather than the Chancellor indicates a role reversal and now neither of them trust each other with the lights out. Sparks ahead for the Budget narrative.

So, with April 8th now out-of-the-window and May 6th nailed-on, not least because of the local elections in the Mets, Parliament must be dissolved by April 12th.

The decision to go to a May poll is high risk for Labour. Although Parliament must be dissolved by April 12th at the latest for May 6th, there’s an Easter recess to be squeezed-in before then, and I can’t see MP’s being called-back for a day just for prorogation, not that they actually have to return to London, nowadays. [Note that the Easter recess dates are still to be set.]

The brutal practicalities of this mean that the Election campaign will start on Thursday 25th March, the day after the budget and immediately before Easter, meaning a long campaign during which the broadcast media will be compelled to give equal weight to all parties. I think this is a really significant thing. It's why I wrote about the rules that strict cover broadcasting during the campaign here.

So, I’m not sure why Labour is risking a free-pass to the other parties for longer than absolutely necessary. You’d have thought that they’d have learned from John Major in 1997, who allowed one of the longest campaigns in history and paid the price accordingly.

Perhaps they think the momentum really is with them but when it comes to elections, Mike’s third rule applies. If you’re defending a lead, keep it short and sweet.

I’ve written before that Labour & LibDem’s are fishing in the same pool. The longer the campaign, the more the exposure the LibDems will get so the better the LibDems will do at the expense of Labour and, all other things being equal, that means that the Conservative lead will increase, even if their share remains constant at 38-40%.

I still think that Labour could have sealed-in some of their recent advances by going early. There’s a saying in politics, ‘Quit whilst you’re ahead’. But now they’re risking it all. The more you’re on the box, the better you do in the polls. And Labour have most to lose from a long campaign.

With equality of media coverage during the campaign, they’re betting the farm on those Q1 figures on St George’s Day being positive. If the figures reflect the shocking start in January, it will derail their ‘don’t risk the recovery’ meme with a fortnight to go. Ouch. And with unease in the currency market, who knows what could happen.

Of course, Labour could maintain the fiction that June 3rd is still on the cards but even I can’t see the generally risk-averse Brown throwing their local councillors to the lions on May 6th, from whom the party will rebuild itself in the event of losing control in the General.

So, whether by his own decision or having been forced to by Darling, going for May 6th Brown is now throwing caution to the wind. But then, Labour’s got nothing to lose. It’s double-or-quits.

But with the benefit of hindsight that tip-off in the Oaklands Hotel in Norwich last July that Labour would have the budget and go straight to the country without the inconvenience of a debate now turns out to have been right all along. I just misinterpreted it datewise. Logic indicated that Brown should go early. But Hey! This is politics. Who says that Logic applies?

But that’s no consolation to those that bet on April 8th. Sorry guys. We can’t win ‘em all. I really thought I'd got it nailed.

Bunnco – Your Man on the Spot

Seat Calculator Links

At the risk of boring everyone, please find below more links:

Firstly, especially for tim: A version of the calculator with the ability to adjust the unwind by region.

Regional Calculator

Secondly, as promised to Chris A, links to the simple additive UNS spreadsheets for the past few elections:

1983-1987

1987-1992

1992-1997

1997-2001

2001-2005

The electoral constituency results required for the calculators were taken from the data kindly made available by Martin Baxter at his Electoral Calculus site