2015 General Election - Who's Going To Win - And How Many Votes Will They Need?

Election 2015 is nearly upon us, which will mean hectic campaigning, and by 7 May, for me, shattered legs and knees from walking up hills and steps in Harrow West. But when the voting stops, the counting begins, and the results are declared, who's going to win?

LABOUR - WHAT DO THEY NEED?

According to the Electoral Calculus, the Conservatives' unpopularity can't get them to win. Yes, governments tend to become more popular as the election nears, but the predictions are firmly in the "red zone" of a Labour majority in 2013. With only the economy to boast about, the Electoral Calculus argues a lack of policy. Thinking about it in terms of data, between the last two years before the election (for example, 1981-1983, 2008-2010, 2013-2015), the government tends to rise by an average of 2.2% since 1981-3, whereas the opposition falls by a whopping 6.3% since 1981-3. The Liberal Democrats/Alliance have an average rise of 2.3%. Applying this to the 2013 values on the Electoral Calculus and you get the Conservatives on 32.5%, Labour on 31.9%, and the Liberal Democrats on 12.5%. Uniform swings produce the following: Labour short by 14 on the Electoral Calculus; Labour short by 18 on UK Polling Report; Labour short by 24 on the swingometer. With the Conservatives 0.6% ahead in the votes, this result would open up questions about the voting system.

EC: LAB 312, CON 280, LD 30, OTH 28 - Labour short by 14

UKPR: LAB 308, CON 281, LD 31, OTH 29 - Labour short by 18

SWINGO: LAB 302, CON 261, LD 57, OTH 30 - Labour short by 24

Using a poll released on the day I am writing this, which has Labour on 34%, the Conservatives on 33%, UKIP on 14%, and the Liberal Democrats on 7%, applying this uniformly gives the following: Labour majority of 6 on the Electoral Calculus; Labour short by 1 on UK Polling Report; Labour short by 20 on the swingometer. Adjusting the swingometer for the Liberal Democrat losses that the Electoral Calculus predicts, the swingometer argues that Labour would be short by 2. 

EC: LAB 328, CON 280, OTH 27, LD 15, UKIP 0 - Labour Majority of 6

UKPR: LAB 325, CON 281, OTH 27, LD 16 - Labour short by 1

SWINGO: LAB 306, CON 257, LD 57, OTH 30 - Labour short by 20

ADJUSTED SWINGO: LAB 324, CON 284, LD 15, OTH 30 - Labour short by 2

From this we can determine that Labour need about 35% (just to be sure) with a two point lead over the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats on about 7-9% to win the election. 

CONSERVATIVES - CAN DAVID CAMERON BE REELECTED?

Can the Conservatives win? According to Peter Kellner, President of YouGov, they can. All they need to do is to attract the Liberal Democrat voters, whose vote share is 8% in one poll at the moment. If that were to happen at the election in May, then 16% of the vote needs to be redistributed. An 8%/8% increase for Labour and the Conservatives will give the Conservatives will end up with an overall majority assuming that the Conservative, Labour, and UKIP voters vote the same way they did in 2010. The Electoral Calculus predicts a Conservative majority of 38; UK Polling Report predict a majority of 36; the basic swingometer that I composed predicts a hung Parliament, with the Conservatives short by 20. A swingometer only accounts for a two-party system, mind you, so this can be discounted. The reason is that both Labour and the Conservatives will pick up the seats they're fighting against with the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives have more potential in this area, winning the South West of England and picking up four extra seats in Scotland whilst holding the one they already have.

EC: CON 344, LAB 277, OTH 25, LD 4, UKIP 0 - Conservative Majority of 38

UKPR: CON 343, LAB 277, OTH 25, LD 4 - Conservative Majority of 36

SWINGO: CON 306, LAB 258, LD 57, OTH 30 - Conservatives short by 20

We therefore know that a seven point lead would win the Conservatives the election if they attract Liberal voters. We'll try looking at the height of the Conservatives' polling within the last month, which was a two-point lead with them on 36%. This has the Conservatives on 36%, Labour on 34%, UKIP on 13%, and the Liberal Democrats on 7%. Would a two-point lead be enough to win them the election? No. They wouldn't even be the largest party in a hung Parliament, according to both the Electoral Calculus and UK Polling Report: Labour short by 13 and 16 respectively. The swingometer paints a slightly better picture for the Conservatives with Labour short by 31 - which is one of the most equal states possible.

EC: LAB 313, CON 299, OTH 27, LD 11, UKIP 0 - Labour short by 13

UKPR: LAB 310, CON 302, OTH 27, LD 10 - Labour short by 16

SWINGO: LAB 285, CON 278, LD 57, OTH 30 - Labour short by 31

The problem with the predicted average change in the polls is that the 2013 averages are unfairly skewed by a huge double-figure lead Labour possessed throughout the first few months of 2013 (with voters still feeling the effects of Osborne's so-called "omnishambles" budget in 2012). The Conservatives' best poll in Q4 of 2013, therefore, had the Conservatives and Labour tied on 35%, with UKIP on 10% and the Lib Dems on 9%. UKIP are not included in the averages, so apply the averages to this (to no decimal places) and you end up with the Conservatives on 37%, Labour on 29%, and the Liberal Democrats on 11%. This would be enough for the Conservatives to win: Conservative majority of 22 on the Electoral Calculus, Conservative majority of 16 on UK Polling Report. The swingometer gives the Conservatives short by 17, but accounting for Liberal losses according to the Electoral Calculus gives an extra 11 seats to Labour and 25 extra seats to the Conservatives, more than enough, ending up with a majority of 18.

EC: CON 336, LAB 266, OTH 29, LD 19 - Conservative Majority of 22

UKPR: CON 333, LAB 263, OTH 28, LD 25 - Conservative Majority of 16

SWINGO: CON 309, LAB 254, LD 57, OTH 30 - Conservatives short by 17

ADJUSTED SWINGO: CON 334, LAB 265, OTH 30, LD 21 - Conservative Majority of 18.

The Conservatives therefore still would rely on the Lib Dem collapse more than anything else, as their lead of 7% at the last election is difficult to expand, otherwise we'd be getting into, as Jeremy Paxman once put it, "Michael Foot territory" - and this is where the swingometer comes in handy. If the Liberal Democrats do not collapse, we predict at Benjamin's Blog the Conservatives will need an 11% lead over Labour - a 2% swing. With the Conservatives on 39% and Labour on 28%, there's a clear winner, but what happens if both parties start dropping and the Liberal Democrats stay the same? Using UKPR, which is better for this sort of thing when looking at the Lib Dems, the Lib Dems would only need to garner 1% extra in order to force a hung Parliament if the Conservatives win by 11% (CON 38%, LAB 27%, LD 25%, OTH 11%).

Therefore, the very minimum the Conservatives need to win the election will depend on how well or badly the Liberal Democrats do. If the Lib Dem vote doesn't collapse, the Conservatives would need to get 39% to win with Labour on 28%. We estimate that if the Lib Dem vote does collapse to 7% then the Conservatives would only need a 5-6% lead over Labour with the Conservatives on around what they got last time - and could even afford to undercut it - 35% or thereabouts. As a graph, we can think about lead over Labour vs. Lib Dem rating. If the Lib Dems end up somewhere in the middle, say, on 14%, the Conservatives would need an 8% lead.

TO CONCLUDE AS A TABLE

In table form:

Labour and the economy

This week saw the Labour Party conference. A buzz of socialism gathered together in one big hall, used as an attempt to try to promote the Labour Party to voters. However, this week the public saw who the real Labour were.

On day one I received an email from the Conservative Party taken from a survey of those who had attended the Labour Party conference (conducted by Labour). In it, it contained the damning evidence of Labour PPCs up and down the country, almost UKIP-esque in how each candidate gets notoriety:

85% of Labour PPCs said that the last Labour government didn't spend too much.

Ridiculous. According to the Institute For Fiscal Studies, "spending on public services has increased by an average of 4.4% a year in real terms under Labour, significantly faster than the 0.7% a year average seen under the Conservatives from 1979 to 1997." As Labour poured so much money into public services in their first 10 years from 1997 to 2007, productivity fell. Worse still, the real terms value of the pound fell by even more than productivity in these 10 years. The warning signs were there and Labour had already spent too much. According to the Institute For Fiscal Studies, "if the Government had managed to maintain the “bang for each buck” at the level it inherited in 1997, it would have been able to deliver the quantity and quality of public services it delivered in 2007 for £42.5 billion less." £42,500,000,000 of your money. Unnecessarily spent.

10% of Labour PPCs said that the last Labour government should have spent more money.

I'm not having a laugh, I promise. On top of the £42.5bn wasted between 1997 and 2007, the deficit increased from the £29.2bn deficit it inherited to £36.4bn before the recession - another loss of £7.2bn - and when the recession hit, boy, did Labour mess this up. Since 1979, the biggest budget deficit was in 1993 where the government that year, as a consequence of Black Wednesday, ran a budget deficit of £50.9bn. In 2008 Darling smashed that with £69bn. In 2009 he went even better and smashed it up to an incredible £156.3bn. One hundred and fifty six billion and three hundred million pounds was the government black hole. That was bigger than Greece. And at the same time taxes were going up. This wasn't working for Labour. And yet over 60 PPCs say that wasn't enough. They wanted to clog up the toilet with the wasted money being flushed away.

42% of Labour PPCs want to raise direct taxes to reduce the deficit.

Only 18% think we should cut spending.

Wow. Time to get this old poster out again:

And that was in 1992. This time around it's even worse. Labour have an £36bn black hole to fill of unfunded spending commitments, and they want 29.8 million taxpayers to pay for it. That's an extra £1,208.05 per year. An extra £1,200, we'll call it, every year. That's 4.6% of the average national income. According to Guido Fawkes, this tax isn't steeper for the rich. It isn't even flat. It will hit the poorest hardest. Besides, even if you taxed the rich at 98%, as Labour once did, you wouldn't be able to fund it.

So where will you find £1,200? You could cut back by £20 per week on food and groceries.

OK, maybe not. Another way? You could give up the family holiday, that should save £1,200 in one go. That won't go down popularly either.

So let's look at another way. You could sell your car - that's at least £1,200, surely? OK, maybe not. 

All right, you can keep your car, but you'd have to give up your evenings and go minicabbing. Well that's no fun, is it?

You could try striking, but that never works, does it? Strikes go up under Labour, maybe that's why... 

In that case, you'd just have to work overtime. A teacher would have to take classes for an extra few hours. A fireman would have to work a few extra shifts. A farmer would have to sweat in the field.

Judging by their tax bombshell, it's no wonder that

ED MILIBAND DIDN'T MENTION THE ECONOMY ONCE IN HIS SPEECH.

Also, not only did Blair and Brown's government make a mess of the economy, but Wilson and Callaghan made a mess of the economy too...

I shall leave you with the following tweet:

Ed Miliband couldn't run a bath, let alone the economy.

— Rhys Benjamin (@TheotherRB) September 24, 2014

Is Eurovision the answer to the Russia/Ukraine crisis?

Over the last few days, Vladimir Putin has said a lot of things about the current situation there. But with World War Three Four seemingly on the horizon (well, surely World War Three was the Afghan War?), is there a solution from a place you wouldn't expect it?

In the 1976 Olympics, US and USSR athletes were spotted talking to each other. It's little things like this. But my solution is what my major event was designed for.

In 1956, the Eurovision Song Contest was set up to promote peace and unite a war-torn Europe. Surely the Eurovision Song Contest can return to its original values for a few weeks in April and May? It definitely can. This year, it's in the neutral country of Denmark. Because they won last year, if you have read the link before.

Where are we on this? Well, Ukraine have revealed its entry - have a listen here - whilst Russia are revealing theirs in the middle of March. My country, the United Kingdom, has revealed its entry - Molly with "Children Of The Universe". 

Why mention the UK, though? Why didn't I mention something like "Heartbeat" from Ireland? Well, there's two very good reasons for that: the Irish song is rubbish, and the lyrics of the UK entry have a part in this.

Don't believe me? Well, read this extract from the UK entry:

Power to the people, oh, ee ee

Power to the people, oh, oh-oh-oh 

(And no, I'm not advertising a certain mobile phone company. Honest.)

Will Ukraine act on the UK's song? Well, if they speak English, they will. That's what they want, isn't it? Some socialist propaganda according to popular opinion? In reality, it's more Thatcherite propaganda: socialism is the devolution of powers from the individual and to the state. Power from the people, more like.

If the Ukrainian entrant - whose name I can't spell - gets stuck in with the social aspect of the contest - and possibly achieves a good result with "Tick Tock" (which is very good!) then maybe tensions will diffuse? What will the countries give each other, though? Let's bear in mind it is a televote. People have the choice. (OK, 50% of the scores do come from professionals, but it's still a televote mostly, as televote has precedence in a tie-break.)

I don't think Ukraine will win the contest with "Tick Tock". Yes, it's solid, but not as good as the British and Romanian entries in my eyes. And Hungary have finally sent something decent, so should do well. So that may hinder things. But will homophobic Putin watch Eurovision, a telethon synonymous with the LGBT community? I hate to say it, but I think the answer will be no. The organisers of the contest in general, the EBU, and the organisers of this year's contest, DR, are using the slogan #JoinUs, which is a bit unwieldy. I hope Putin reads it - but how do you translate a hashtag into Russian? Anyone?

Of course, Ukraine could, at great expense (the fines are immense!) pull the plug on the contest altogether. The last time a country did that was Armenia in 2012, who were fined a lot of money. Circumstances aren't that bad - the contest was being held in Azerbaijan, which has been at war with Armenia since 1993 - and although both countries wanted Armenia there, Armenia pulled out after there was a shoot-out and a death in the conflict. 

Since Ukraine joined the contest in 2004, Russia have given them points in the final every year, with the exception of 2006. Even so, they don't tend to give them lots of points - mostly 1 or 2. Even in 2013, when Ukraine came third, Russia only awarded one point to the Ukraine, when most countries awarded lots more. So the Russian people will probably give nul points to Ukraine. 

But only time will tell if Eurovision solves this. 

£166bn down the drain? No thanks, Ed...

Ed Balls has been trying to claim that Labour ‘will not duck the hard choices ahead’. They said they were serious about the economy. But now we know that isn't true.

Analysis by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that his plans would allow Labour to borrow and spend billions more.

Official Treasury numbers have shown the full impact of Labour’s plans: a borrowing bombshell adding an additional £166bn to the country's debt in just one parliament, despite what Miliband and Balls will tell you.

Labour’s plan to borrow and spend more is the single biggest risk to our economic recovery. And it’s hardworking people who would pay the price, with higher taxes funding this latest Labour spending spree.

The choice at the next election is now clear: the Conservatives with our long-term economic plan that is building a stronger, more competitive economy, and securing a better future for Britain; the Same Old Labour Party, with no plan, no direction, and no ideas other than more spending, more borrowing and more taxes.

Are you sure you can trust Ed Balls with the economy? After all, Alistair Darling is better than him and look how that ended up. 

A Real Nightmare

If you haven't guessed by now, I am a student. Sadly, I can't change the time settings on this blog: I have no idea what the time is in PST - or whatever the time setting is. But nonetheless, it is my half term break. I use the phrase 'break' very loosely: this has been a break from hell. Ultimately, one can surely understand if I'm having a nightmare. But not one like this.

Well, this half term has been dreadful. As well as the now customary mountain of homework given to me, my father decided that now is the time to redecorate my room. Part of me is glad: I used to have a horrible greeny-yellow wallpaper. But that's OK: the paint just has to be finished now. A colour that Homebase call 'azure' (whatever that is), with 'silk emulsion'. I still have no idea. But that is fine - but this week has been dreadful for the following reasons.

On the evening of Monday 17 February, Microsoft released an update for Windows. The update must have a bug in it, for it broke ALL the computers I have.

Despite technological experts, one is in a state of disrepair. The other one is password-protected due to a fault (we didn't set it to be password-protected but the update has forced it to be so) - and we don't know the password.

Consequently, I'm currently speaking to you from a crummy 7'' tablet my mother owns, whilst listening to 'Diva' by Dana International and watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? on a television channel called Challenge - which is the best thing since sliced bread (it broadcasts game shows!). I haven't got a clue in which US state Saint Augustine is, so I, like this contestant, would gladly take one hundred and twenty five thousand pounds! 

Anyway, I didn't come here to go on and on about US states and female authors and whether the correct term for someone against increasing the powers of the EU is a eurosceptic, a eurostar, a eurotrash, or a eurovision. Oh, no, no, no, no, no. And squeezing this between the mountain of homework given to me...

Anyway, this strange dream I had... where to begin?

As my room is being redecorated, I'm sleeping with my brother (and all of you disgusting perverts can get that thought of your heads NOW), and I have a dream about the next general election.

David Dimbleby introduces the election night, with very badly airbrushed pictures of Ed Miliband, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Nigel Farage standing side by side by side by side. Then he introduces Jeremy Vine swinging his swingometer. (I've just thought about using a pun on 'Vine' and 'swinging', but I'm not clever enough to think of one.) Then Andrew Neil and Andrew Marr get shoehorned in, Peter Kellener is added as an afterthought, the Formula One commentator Ben Edwards is also there. I don't know why, the BBC tend to do use gimmicks on election nights: in 2005, they had people spray-painting a map of the UK in the colours won by each constituency. Attempting not to go over the lines on Sunderland South and other extremely urban constituencies was a bit of a disaster. In 2010, they had Andrew Neil interviewing, of all people, Piers Morgan and Bruce Forsyth on a boat next to the London Eye,the latter seeming not to give two hoots about the election. So I have no idea what Ben Edwards is doing there. And then David Dimbleby introduces Emily Maitlis and Nick Robinson, attempting to hide the frustration of a night with Nick Robinson, which would drive anyone mad!

Anyhow, in my version of reality, I am sitting on my sofa with 15 cans of Red Bull and 29 cups of coffee ready to drink in emergency, bearing in mind I hate both of them. Dimbers gives us an exit poll at 22:00 which appears to have gone slightly wrong as it shows UKIP on 631 (+631), Labour on 0 (-258), the Conservatives on 0 (-306), the Liberal Democrats on 0 (-57), and the others on 19 (-10). Nick Robinson dismisses it as rubbish, Jeremy Vine runs out of swing, and Peter Kellener is stunned into silence.

Right then - according to Mr Dimbleby - Houghton and Sunderland South should be first to declare. As always, the swing here will be important, just as it will in the 631 constituencies where the main parties are standing (650 - Speaker's seat - Northern Ireland = 631). 

At 22:41, Houghton and Sunderland South declares with a 7% swing to Labour. UKIP are nowhere. "Well," says Nick Robinson, "What an interesting result. Let's wait and see."

Sunderland Central declares. 7% swing to Labour. UKIP nowhere. This pattern continues for the North East. Result after result goes to Labour. UKIP make gains in the Conservative heartlands. The Liberal Democrats are able to concentrate their votes and monopolise Cornwall and Devon. Making facial gestures at home very similar to those made by defeated Conservative candidates in 1997, I begin to look up one-way plane tickets to Sweden.

It's now, on election night, 4am - and the one result I was desperate to see is coming through. Harrow West. After 17 recounts, this seat finally declares - and Gareth Thomas is ousted after 18 years. Hannah David, a very nice woman comes in. Hannah David wins by just two votes from Gaeth Thomas for the Conservatives. UKIP take third.

But I watch Ed Miliband stumble over his words in Downing Street, with the Ed Balls clown back there - and reading in the papers that he attempted to steal from Buckingham Palace, Ed Miliband walks in to Downing Street - and I wake up. My brother's just switched the lights on. He does this sort of thing. I promptly turn out the lights again. (The political know-alls who read this blog can probably see where this is going.)

Fortunately, you can stop it. By voting for David Cameron at the next general election, you can stop Ed Miliband from winning. A vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour. A vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote for Labour. But if Miliband wins, I WILL be getting on that plane to Sweden - and will the last person to leave please turnout the lights?

Labour's (new!) tax bombshell

I had a quick trawl through the Labour Party website, and I could only find the one policy on it, on Ed Miliband's one-off energy price freeze. However, what policies there are on the Labour side, it's obvious as to why they don't want to mention them. Labour have pledged to spend the same pot of money, coming from a bank levy, 13 times over: youth jobs guarantee; lowering VAT; reversing child benefit changes; reversing ALL of Iain Duncan Smith's benefit reforms; more regional growth funding; turning empty shops into community centres; more housing; childcare; cutting the deficit; more spending; more spending on public services.

But hold on, it's not possible to spend more and cut the deficit. It's also not possible to spend the same pot of money 13 times over. So Labour would have to increase taxes. But even if you taxed the rich at 98% (as Labour once did), there aren't enough rich people to pay for it all. So Labour would have to come up with something that hit everybody. The result? Well, look below:

That's £1,250 more tax per year for the typical worker under Ed 'n' Ed - £6,250 more tax over the next five years. Yes, I know I'm recycling old Conservative Party adverts, but it is same old Labour. So where would you save £1,250?

Well, don't worry, Labour would give you a choice:

1. Save £25 per week on weekly shopping. This means giving up chocolate, for starters.
2. Give up the family holiday. This may not prove too popular.
3. Sell your car - that could save you £6,250. But how would you do Britain-wide journeys?
4. Keep your car but take up minicabbing, giving up your evening.
5. Strike - probably explaining why they go up under Labour - but it wouldn't work.
6. Labour more for Labour. Work overtime.

The world recession has made it difficult for all of us, but with taxes down, strikes down, and inflation down, Britain is poised to gain most when the economy REALLY gets going. The last thing we need now is more taxes from Labour.

I was about to finish this blog post at that, and then I re-read it. And I noticed Labour have pledged to turn shops into community centres. Yes, they really are so anti-business they would let that happen. Another £5m down the drain.

What else have Labour pledged? They've pledged to renationalise energy. And EVERYONE knows this doesn't work. Between 1945 and 1987, the British taxpayer wasted £40bn to rescue failed nationalised industries - and that's not including Northern Rock, RBS, and Lloyds. There's only been one case where nationalisation has worked, and that is the NHS. "Oh", say Labour, "but prices are rising! It's the cost of living crisis, it's the end of the world!"

That argument doesn't stack up:

1. Labour's figure of £1,600 does not include tax cuts by this government.
2. We are exactly on the IMF inflation target of 2.0%.
3. One should introduce more competition into markets, not less.

This election will be a two-party election, and, owing to the nature of the British electoral system, a vote for anyone other than the Conservatives will be a vote for Labour. David Cameron isn't the most popular Prime Ministers ever - it will be the least worst candidate who is returned to Downing Street - David Cameron is far better than Ed Miliband.