YouGov’s Post

Well done to YouGov's Political Team and all that support them in the background! I love seeing your passion and energy in the office. It makes me feel proud to be in your wider Public Team. YouGov called 92% of the seats correctly, and our model correctly projected: -  Labour’s landslide victory -  The extent of the Conservative vote collapse -  The nearly perfect projection of Liberal Democrat seats -  The Green party and Reform UK as growing electoral forces

Election Notes 6 – What Can Reform UK Achieve In This Election? (part 2) The polling data also shows is that Reform are the number one destination for 2019 Tory voters switching away this time. However, surveys have shown that only a minority of those switchers would go back to the Tories if Reform were not available to vote for. This is not a party whose vote looks likely to be squeezed.  In my previous article, I mentioned the role of the Canadian Reform Party in the electoral earthquake that saw the governing Progressive Conservatives crash to just two seats in 1993. What was notable was that Reform’s support was geographically focused on western Canada, enabling them to win 52 seats, while the more widespread vote of the Progressive Conservatives led to a near wipe-out. This example has led various commentators to speculate that Mr Farage might attempt to emulate what happened in Canada, where Reform remained the larger of the two parties and ended up managing a reverse takeover of the older party, forming the present-day Canadian Conservative party and enjoying several years in office before the Justin Trudeau years. From Andrew Neill to a Guardian article, this notion has had a lot of coverage this last week. However, the analogy falls down precisely because the Canadian situation represents the reverse of the British scenario. Here, it is the Conservatives have the more geographically-rooted support and, even in the most apocalyptic worse-case scenarios, will win dozens of seats, Reform is still projected to win none, although this calculation may be upset by individual circumstances such as those of Mr Farage standing in Clapton and ex-Tory defector Lee Anderson, defending his Ashfield seat he won under a different party label. Such an outcome could leave Reform with voices in Parliament, but fewer than the Tories even if they get a similar number of votes. This quirk of the first-past-the-post system similarly impacted UKIP, where Douglas Carswell, like Anderson a Tory defector and like Farage standing in Clapton, won their sole victory in 2015. This situation might also be compared to the 1983 general election, when the Liberal-SDP Alliance vowed to replace Labour as the main left-of centre party, but won just 23 seats for 25.4 per cent of the vote, while Labour secured 209 with 27.6 per cent. In the end, the Alliance morphed into the Liberal Democrats and Labour recovered to eventually become a party of government again. Mr Farage may have shrugged off being attacked with a banana milkshake this week, but he may find the electoral system provides a banana skin for his party’s lofty ambitions.   

So, the election results were...interesting. But I think that the next general election has the potential to be even more disruptive than this one. I'm not going to be providing a completely original analysis, but there might be a few nuances in there that I'd be keen to discuss with others. Firstly, Labour winning the election wasn't much of a surprise to most, but like most commentators have said, did they win because people wanted Labour or because people wanted the Tories out? Hard to say, especially with Labour winning seats in Scotland off of the SNP. To me, some of the most surprising results were in the things that have been barely reported on. Specifically, the rise in Independent MPs who aren't affiliated with a political party - like Jeremy Corbin for Islington North (whatever you think about him). We didn't have any Independent MPs after the 2019 election, and now we have 6, and they consisted of 2% of the vote. Those aren't big numbers, but could it mean the beginning of a shift away from political parties? I think that more independent MPs in parliament that don't have a horse in the RED vs BLUE race should mean that they'll only be on the side of their constituents. Which could be positive change. We can also recognise changes in voting patterns by the votes for Lib Dem, Green and Reform. I could see all of these parties gaining even more votes in the next election if Labour doesn't manage to make positive economic changes to centre their next campaign on. Now, I have to talk briefly about the First Past The Post vs the proportional representation system argument that's been ignited post-election. From what I've come across, more people want to switch to the PR system. I've also seen (and spoken to) people who have been historically in favour of it but are suddenly on the fence because that would mean that Reform would have a larger say in parliament this time around - with 14% of the vote. That's not how democracy works, and it is a failing of the system that they got 4,117,221 votes, and those voters aren't being represented. No matter what you think of Reform (I don't personally like them, but that's beside the point). Democracy can be a bitter pill to swallow, but ignoring these voters will probably only increase their presence in the next election. Just look at Trump and the disenfranchised South to see what will happen if you ignore a voting base. Therefore, in the next election, we could see even more splitting of the vote between the third parties (Lib Dem, Green etc.), a likely rise in Reform votes and hopefully a rise in Independent votes as well. But this will all hinge on whether Labour can make the changes they suggest and if the Conservatives can re-brand in 5 years. Either way, I think the next election will be entertaining, at least. And will probably be something that is taught in Politics Degrees in the future as a decisive shift in early 21st century UK politics. What do you think?

How many of you stayed up to watch the election results last night?    I tried but found myself falling asleep by 1am! What I found interesting over the course of the night was to see how the vote share has landed versus the seats won. Labour with 33.8% of the vote share and a huge amount of seats at 410 whereas the Conservatives have 23.7% of the vote share but only a small amount of seats at 119. Interestingly enough Reform UK had the third largest vote share with 14.3% but only 4 seats versus the Liberal Democrats with 12.2% of the vote share with 71 seats. All of this has resulted in the worst election defeat in history for the Conservatives and one of the best election results for the Liberal Democrats. What does all of this tell us? I think it’s quite clear that the public have voted for change, and it could be said that many voters voted in protest yesterday because they demanded change. It has been commonplace in the last couple of elections that Nigel Farage’s party has gained popularity with voters but has struggled to win seats and so it is speculated that a lot of Conservative voters have voted Reform in this election. What does this mean for investments? At time of writing the FTSE 100 is up by 0.36% with the FTSE 250 up by 1.6%. The FTSE 250 is the more important index here as it is widely considered a better metric of the UK economy. The markets were fully expecting a Labour government and I don’t think it comes as a surprise to anyone. In terms of investment portfolios, the UK election results won’t make a huge difference right now but where the UK election results will make a difference is what Labour choose to do from here, I wouldn’t expect any form of ‘budget’ before October/November time and this will likely be our first indication as to any economic change. For further insights from yesterday's election results, check out our latest article on our website detailing the impact on investment now Labour has won the general election (link in comments) ⬇️ #GeneralElection #Markets

Recently, I conducted a snap general election poll to gauge current voting intentions in the UK. Here’s a concise analysis of the results and their potential consequences: Poll Results Conservative: 15% Labour: 32% Reform UK: 22% Green/LibDem/Other/No Vote: 31% Analysis of Results Labour: Leading the Pack Labour leads with 32% of the vote, reflecting a significant shift in public sentiment. This could be due to dissatisfaction with the current government or Labour’s appealing policies. Conservative: A Decline in Support With only 15% support, the Conservative party faces a considerable decline, likely due to public discontent with the current administration or recent political issues. Reform UK: A Rising Force Reform UK has garnered 22% of the vote, indicating growing popularity. Their focus on Brexit, immigration, and economic reform resonates with many voters. Green/LibDem/Other/No Vote: Significant Minority This category received 31% of the vote, highlighting a fragmented political landscape and the role of smaller parties and non-voters. Consequences of These Results Potential Labour Government: Labour could form the next government, likely shifting policy focus towards healthcare, education, and social services. Challenges for the Conservatives: The Conservative party needs to address the causes of their low support, possibly by re-evaluating policies and public engagement strategies. Emergence of Reform UK: Reform UK's significant support suggests they could become a major political force, pushing traditional parties to reconsider their platforms. Influence of Smaller Parties and Non-Voters: The support for smaller parties and non-voters indicates a diverse political landscape, encouraging broader debates and more comprehensive policies.

Election Notes 8 – Can The Liberal Democrats crack first-past-the post? (part 2) However, 1997 brought a significant change: The party saw its vote share down by one per cent, yet it was up to 46, followed by further increases to 52 in 2001 and 62 in 2005. Tactical voting was a major reason, while another key factor was the ongoing weakness of the Tories, although by 2005 the Liberal Democrats were also, unusually, taking seats from Labour, not least in university areas where the tuition fees pledge and opposition to the Iraq war proved popular. By 2010, nearly as many target seats were Labour held as Tory held, but a major breakthrough was prevented by the fact that many of these were three-way marginals the Conservatives went on to win. This highlights one of two factors that promise to deliver something close to proportionality this time, if the party can get 50 or more seats for around ten per cent of the vote. The first is the weakness of the Conservatives, who now hold 43 of the top 50 Liberal Democrat target seats, and the second is a more efficient distribution of votes. In particular, rather than being evenly spread across the country, the target seats are mostly south of the Severn-Wash line. Between 1997 and 2010 it was normal to see the Liberal Democrats do particularly well in the south-west, while doing quite well in other parts of the south and East. This year, the south east may prove even better than the south west. Elsewhere, there are just a handful of seats scattered across the north of England and Scotland, including the only real Lib-Lab marginal at Sheffield Hallam. In between, there is marked absence of challenges in the Midlands - where the party has often been very weak - and Wales, where the rural strength that existed even in the darker post-war days has dissipated. In these regions, Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tye offers the sole Welsh prospect, while the one Midlands hope is to hold on to the Shropshire North seat won in the 2021 by-election. This contrast, perhaps aided by tactical voting as in 1997, suggests that the Liberal Democrats could be getting more votes exactly where they need them. None of this will change their stance on electoral reform. There is no guarantee they won’t gain more votes in future elections without it translating into many more seats. A Conservative recovery would wipe out a lot of gains, while a drop in Labour support would bring fewer rewards. Nonetheless, in this election at least, an electoral system the Liberal Democrats have loathed for decades may do them no harm at all. 

The Fed’s Decisions Now Could Alter the 2024 Elections The state of the economy will affect voting next November, and the Federal Reserve may find itself in a delicate position, our columnist says. What’s happening in the economy now will have a big effect — perhaps, a decisive one — on the presidential election and control of Congress in 2024. To a remarkable extent, the economy is what matters to voters, so much so that one long-running election model relies on economic data to produce accurate predictions without even considering the identities, personalities, popularity or policies of candidates, or the strategies, messaging or dirty tricks of their campaigns. Right now, that model, created and run by Ray Fair, a Yale economist, shows that the 2024 national elections are very much up for grabs. The economy is strong enough for the incumbent Democrats to win the popular vote for the presidency and Congress next year, Professor Fair’s projections find. But it’s not a slam dunk. Persistent — though declining — inflation also gives the Republicans a reasonable chance of victory, the model shows. Both outcomes are within the model’s margin for error. https://lnkd.in/gK7nUCzW

Twelve months out from the next election, a minority federal government is a live possibility According to analysis by Accent Research and the RedBridge Group, a hung parliament and a Labor majority are almost equally likely outcomes. There is essentially zero probability at this stage the Liberal-National Coalition will win more seats than Labor. Topline results indicate little movement in overall vote share since the last election. However, this hides localised movements. There are always significant regional patterns in voter behaviour. Labor is losing primary votes, particularly in the outer suburbs and regional centres, while the Coalition has gained small primary vote swings everywhere, except rural electorates. Australian elections are not necessarily won by the party, or parties, that win a majority of the popular vote. Rather, it is who can command a majority of support in the House of Representatives that forms government. Current vote patterns do not appear to be resulting in major seat gains for the Coalition, nor major losses for the Labor Party. While the Coalition is within striking distance of some outer suburban and regional seats held by Labor, such as Robertson, Gilmore and Lyons, they do not appear to be winning back urban seats they lost at the last election. Additionally, Labor is competitive in some Liberal-held seats, such as Menzies and Deakin in suburban Melbourne. This electoral geography makes it very difficult for the Coalition to regain government, or even look competitive. Using current electorate boundaries, a hung parliament or a Labor majority are almost equally likely outcomes, according to this model. If a minority government is the outcome, though, Labor is still more likely to still be the largest party in parliament. Of course our estimates won’t be 100 per cent accurate. These results are estimates of public opinion at a point in time. These were derived from a model-based approach called MRP, using a survey of 4,040 Australian voters conducted between February and May 2024. Electorate-level results have average 95 per cent confidence intervals of 6.7 per cent for the Coalition vote share, 4.6 per cent for Labor, 3.7 per cent for the Greens and 6 per cent for other parties and candidates. This shares information across seats, with voters assumed to behave in a related way to other voters with shared characteristics in similar divisions. Voter behaviour will also shift between now and the election, and these estimates are based on current electoral boundaries. A redistribution is underway and those boundaries will change in NSW, Vic and WA. We will also update our estimates once this is finalised. The full results and details on the methodology are available here: https://lnkd.in/g2iX4EST

Election Notes 4 (part 2) – Why The Polls Are Sometimes Wrong (and often right) What had been overlooked was the answers given to a secondary question beyond voting intention, which was how likely people were to actually go and vote. This indicated that fewer of those inclined to support Labour put themselves in the ‘very likely’ or ‘certain’ categories when it came to turning out compared to those leaning Conservative. This made a critical small difference. This, of course, was not an issue for the exit poll, because by definition all the people being polled in it have turned out. With this factor in mind, polling companies sought to avoid the same happening in 2017. One way to do that would be to apply some weighting based on assumed intent to turn out. However, 2017 brought an anomaly. After years of polls apparently skewing projected support towards Labour, the hung parliament defied the majority of polling organisations (Ipsos Mori, NOP and so on), which had pointed to an increased Tory majority. By contrast, Survation (which had not conducted a national poll in 2015) accurately predicted a much smaller lead, while YouGov used a new methodology, interviewing more people than normal (50,000) and asking a set of questions about different values and attitudes to create a ‘big data’ model to predict how people would vote. This caused a major stir three weeks out from the election when it (accurately) predicted a hung parliament. So, why were some polls right and others wrong? The answer may lie in the fact that those organisations that projected a larger Tory lead made the assumption that voters would behave as they had done in 2015. However, because Brexit was the prime issue in 2017 and this cut across party lines, voters switched between the parties in larger numbers than ever before. This was reflected in the fact that swings went in different directions, with the overall swing to Labour stronger in more pro-remain seats, while strong ‘leave’ seats went the other way. Among the low-lead pollsters, Survation had not tried any methodological tweaks and simply published its raw data. At the opposite end of the scale, the sophisticated YouGov method proved justified. True, YouGov said it was subject to a high margin of error, but even that was reflected in the fact that the outcome was on a knife edge; no fewer than 30 seats were won by majorities of under one per cent, compared with just 12 in 2015. It is easy to be critical of polling organisations, but their successes are often overlooked. Even in 2015, for example, they accurately forecast the SNP landslide in Scotland. Therefore, unless things change drastically, the polls foretell calamity for Rishi Sunak. What he cannot do is count on the pollsters getting it badly wrong.

WE NEED TO CHANGE UK’s FLAWED, UNREPRESENTATIVE VOTING SYSTEM The following description is essential reading, as it reveals the flaws in the U.K.’s voting system, most vividly apparent in the General Election 2024. based upon this analysis, the people who now have assumed authority for the governance of our nation do not have the support or authority of the British people. This is really serious and it is essential that the people of Great Britain stand up, work for, demand and achieve transformation. We need to Change Britain for Good. ++++++ You likely know we now have a Labour government Labour won two thirds of parliamentary seats, but with only one third of the vote Labour’s vote share is the lowest to have secured a majority. David Cameron got a higher share of the vote when there was a hung Parliament in 2010. Starmer's vote in Holborn and St Pancras fell from 36,641 in 2019 to 18,884 today. That is unbelievable for an incoming prime minister Reform came second in 98 seats. Read that again. Have to say I was shocked. Voter turnout was around 59% of an eligible (approx) 48,500,000 that can vote and Labour got just 34% of the votes that were cast. The Liberal Democrats got total votes of 3,483,146 and a vote share of 12.3% giving them 71 seats whilst the Tories got total votes of 6,737,448, so almost double, and a vote share of 23.7% but giving them just 119 seats so nowhere near double the seats. The most crazy statistic is for Reform who got total votes of 4,067,915 and a vote share of 14.3%, both exceeding the Liberal Democrats numbers, but got just 4 seats. This is how the munted first past the post system is for this country. So even if you believe in voting and that it matters what colour the government is, we have a system where a party can get more votes and a bigger vote share and end up with 67 seats less than a party who did worse, and who leader's campaign consisted of videos of him bungee jumping. One thing to notice about the numbers is that it appears around 10% of the British population are awake to some degree about what is going on. I would suggest that number is only going to climb and that it will climb quite fast. Numbers correct as at 07.30am on 5 July 2024 Chris Arnold Cliff Findlay (MCIM) Andrew Pearce David L'Herroux David David Bartlett Peter Kerridge Peter Heslam BILL PARTINGTON Brian Trueman MAPM Carl Beech Charles McLachlan Dr Patrick Dixon MBE Debra Green OBE DL Graham Farrant Hisham Abdel Rahman Hardeep Grewal Ian Leat Idris Gwyn Williams Leadership International Dr Jonathan Oloyede Dr Krishna Kandiah OBE Liam Reilly Mark Greene Matt Bird Noel Robinson FRSL HONS (GMIA) Olave Snelling Paul Scanlon Michelle Quail Ben Quail MLPI Ram Gidoomal CBE Ruth Gledhill Ruth O'Reilly-Smith Right To Life UK Antony Billington Transform Work Victoria Rincon