Print

Print
Forgot also to add, polarisation in UK politics -between classes, between regions, between rich and poor, working and onn-working. Scotland voted heavily for the SNP as they're fed up of Conservative cuts / austerity, don't want to be governned by a capital that, for some parts of Scotland, is further away than the Norwegian capital, and probably some resentment at losing the 2014 independence referendum.


Dr Hillary J. Shaw
Director and Senior Research Consultant
Shaw Food Solutions
Newport
Shropshire
TF10 8NB
www.fooddeserts.org



-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Conway <[log in to unmask]>
To: CRIT-GEOG-FORUM <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:43
Subject: Re: election

Of course very multifactorial but the crypto-Tory explanation seems most crucial. Goes to show that voters have to be convinced of more than whether or not a party is 'nasty.' (People are nasty.) The dithering middle will vote for what they think will be best for their mortgage and tell pollsters what they think will be best for their identity. (Perhaps also going for incumbency out of sheer indecision, having not been given enough reason to diverge from the status quo. Incumbency as the 'safe,' default option.)

Other factors (drummed up English nationalism, media pressure, etc.) explain the swing but not so much why the polls didn't pick it up. These other factors are compounding the basic dynamic of voter duplicity. And how do you poll that? It's like, pace Taleb, every other swan might only be painted white...

The question would then be: Why do voters lie sometimes more than others? And, for that matter, what was so different about the exit poll (which still underestimated the Tory swing)?

Understanding the difference between those pre/post polls should give you the answer, no? (Assuming they weren't just lucky.)


Philip.

On 8 May 2015 at 12:50, R Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

So Nick Clegg hung on in Sheffield because those against him went to see the Blades lose to Swindon and didn't get to the polls in time after?

Express recommended voting UKIP: Sun Tories in England/Wales but SNP in Scotland..... I think the Mail and Telegraph were for Tories too?!?!??!

On 8 May 2015 at 12:43, Ilan Kelman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Other factors to add to the mix:

1. Turnout, not just how many voted but how many of a party's core voters went to the polls.

2. Who the media endorsed, particularly the tabloids.

3. The implications of an EU referendum, irrespective of the outcome, were downplayed. So much for learning the lessons of the implications of Scotland's referendum, irrespective of the outcome.

4. Late swings were likely influenced by polls themselves being published.

5. First-time voters voting or not.

But much can also come down to the weather or sporting results in terms of how people are feeling that day or that week. Did Cameron's response to Nepal's earthquake make him appear to be more Prime Ministerial or not? So many constituencies were won by small percentages and Labour appears to have increased their overall vote percentage more than the Tories increased theirs. When Clegg can still win his seat and the Tories can still win a seat in Scotland, a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a political tornado in Skegness.

Ilan




From: R Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: [CRIT-GEOG-FORUM] election

London didn't shift to the right as much as the rest of England - and UKIP did very poorly there! (And the working class is not being squeezed out of London)

The pollsters who designed the exit poll got it right

Possible reasons

1. 'Spiral of silence' - Conservative supporters more likely to 'lie' in polls

2. Many undecideds till very late and majority went to the right

3. Very late swings - as in 1992

4. The fear factor - especially Cameron's 'Vote Labour get the SNP'

More?



On 8 May 2015 at 10:42, Simon P J Batterbury <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Can any political geographers tell us why the UK pollsters got the election results so wrong?
 
I was at a big lecture by Mike Savage last night in Brussels on ‘class’ in Britain, and his multivariate reworking on the concept, which follows a massive BBC poll on class a couple of years ago, suggested opportunity and inheritance increasingly define class position defined in terms of ‘capitals’, and redefinitions of traditional Labour-voting working classes as well.
 
With wealth now so concentrated in London and its hinterland, some shifts to the right there may have been expected. But to the whole of England? The Belgian papers are calling it a victory for the conservateurs over the travaillistes but many working classes, increasingly non-white, actually vote Tory (at least where I grew up in suburban London)
 
Dr. Simon Batterbury
Visiting Reseach Fellow, | Brussels Centre for Urban Studies | Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Belgium. (community bike workshops in Europe, 10 March-15 June 2015  https://bikeworkshopsresearch.wordpress.com)
 
Associate Professor| School of Geography | 221 Bouverie St  (rm L2.33) | University of Melbourne, 3010 VIC, Australia.    +61 (0)3 8344 9319  simonpjb @ unimelb.edu.au | http://www.simonbatterbury.net
 
 



--
Professor RON JOHNSTON, FAcSS, FBA, OBE
School of Geographical Sciences
University of Bristol
Bristol BS8 1SS






--
Professor RON JOHNSTON, FAcSS, FBA, OBE
School of Geographical Sciences
University of Bristol
Bristol BS8 1SS