Yep, this is another one of my stats pieces, so if you're looking for lots of speculation about sociological factors, you're not in the right place.
Donald Trump defied the odds to win the US Presidential election. But how did he defy the odds and the polls? What did he do that we got completely wrong? Let's delve into it to find out.
Trump really had no right to go down the board as far as he did, really. Taking Michigan, for example: Trump needed a 4.8% swing to take this and he got a 4.9% swing here. We don't have any figures yet for the congressional districts in Maine and Nebraska, but all throughout the night the the BBC were predicting that the second one in both states would swing to the other party. I found this odd considering how deep they were in "safe" territory on both sides. As it was, Nebraska II stayed red.
Whilst 306 vs 232 seems like a big margin, it really wasn't. Had Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Maine II gone blue, we would have had a 269 vs 269 tie, and then, would Paul Ryan really have voted for Donald Trump in the House of Representatives? We will never know.
Just how uniform is America? Actually, all the swings in each particular state were close to the national swing of 1.9% from Democrat to Republican. We can further look at this by use of a box plot, indicating the swings in each state.
Immediately, your eyes are drawn to Utah, where there was a huge swing to the Democrats. There wasn't, really - Evan McMullin ran as an independent and gained real momentum, taking many votes off Donald Trump, but ultimately unsuccessful in his bid to win the state. And that leads me onto the third party effects.
Gary Johnson hit 9% in New Mexico but it really was a terrible election night for him, and he is the reason Donald Trump won, one might argue. Two days before election day, Johnson was polling at around 7%, and with Trump looking like he couldn't win, Johnson's campaign team released a video telling the public that a vote for the Libertarians would be a vote to block Hillary Clinton from becoming President, as Donald Trump couldn't win...
As I explained in my first blog post on the election, Johnson's support was mainly from dissident Republicans who had voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 but did not want to vote for Donald Trump. But it appears they did not recognise this fact; throughout the campaign Johnson's campaign targeted dissident Bernie Sanders supporters, highlighting his similarities on social and foreign policy to Sanders'. But by telling his supporters that Trump couldn't win, in effect he was telling them it was safe to vote for Trump. Oops. On election day, his poll numbers dropped by 3% and Donald Trump's increased by 3%. Gary Johnson's campaign manager put Donald Trump in the White House.
But let's go back to the swings between the Democrats and the Republicans, The national swing, as has already been stated, was 1.9% from Democrat to Republican. Not enough on a uniform national swing? Correct. But in the swing states, that figure was much higher, 2.8%. It is therefore a great targeting strategy from the Trump campaign, and poor from Clinton's campaign that she did not visit Wisconsin once. Wisconsin should have stayed blue; it went red.
As I've already said, the biggest Democrat swing was in Utah, but aside from that only 10 out of 51 "states" for which we have data (we are missing the 5 congressional districts, but we do have the District of Columbia) produced swings from Romney to Clinton. The other 40 all produced some sort of swing from Obama to Trump.
Clinton, to give her credit, did very well to hang on to Virginia and Colorado. At the beginning of the night, Arizona and Georgia were not "called" immediately, and as these were safe in Republican territory, this was a good sign for Clinton. Nonetheless, the fact that these states stayed red despite swings to Clinton showed us just how terrible the strategy was - that they decided to attack marginal Republican states rather than defend their own states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Her attack board was a complete failure:
Trump missed Virginia and Colorado (number 3 and 4 targets), but he picked up states lower down the board that required such a large swing we didn't even consider them individually - Michigan, Maine II, and Wisconsin. This compensated for his failure earlier on.
For the Democrats to win the presidency back in 2020, the easiest path to victory (notwithstanding the congressional districts) is to take Michigan on a 0.2% swing, Wisconsin on a 0.5% swing, and Pennsylvania on a 0.6% swing. That would put the Democrats back in the White House - and it gives Donald Trump no room to mess up. At all. Ohio may be out of reach for the Democrats (4.3% swing required), but it may not be necessary.
There's now under a week to go until election night, and since my blog post in May, a lot has happened, but this is what the ramifications mean.
As I said in May, it's incredibly difficult for the Republican candidate to win, irrespective of the fact that person is Donald Trump. As such, on a uniform national swing, he needs a 2.7% swing from the Democrats to the Republicans to win. In other words, everyone who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 needs to vote for Donald Trump, as well as 2.7 out of every 100 people who voted for Barack Obama.
A poll of polls is the cumulative amalgamation of several polls over a very short period. So I'm going to construct my own poll of polls, looking solely at polls published on 1 November. They show the following:
This was weighted in favour of polls with larger sample sizes. Now, what does that mean on the change on 2012, and then on the Swingometer?
On a Uniform National Swing, Donald Trump would become president as things stand. The biggest problem for him, however, is that he's not, in terms of constituency state polls, doing enough. He wouldn't win Virgina (#3 on his target list), Colorado (#4) and Pennsylvania (#5), Incredibly, that would be 269 vs 269. Otherwise, the swingometer is consistent uniformly. Making a bad situation worse is that there would be a Democrat gain in North Carolina. Clinton is on her way to the White House.
Furthermore, the indepedent Evan McMullin in Utah means that Donald Trump could lose 6 electoral votes.
A lot of air has gone out of Gary Johnson's balloon sadly, meaning that his potential targets in New Mexico, for example, are heading to Clinton and not to Trump. Johnson's highest state at the moment is Maine, but he's 34 points behind Hillary Clinton there. Gary Johnson can stop Hillary Clinton from becoming President. Donald Trump will not win.
I was for a Leave vote - but I'll be honest. I didn't think we were going to win. Particularly at about 10pm on the night, when Nigel Farage conceded off the back of two entrance polls, I found myself, as with last year's general election, repeating a pattern - going into overdrive and hoping, rather than expecting, a result better than what the poll suggested. And two years in a row, I got it. But there are many patterns to determine as to why Vote Leave won from the psephology.
Reason One: AV
Remember the AV referendum? Nope, nor do I. But what is interesting to see is that there is a very strong correlation between the AV votes and the EU Referendum votes (discounting Gibraltar, as they did not vote in the AV referendum). Those who voted for AV are more likely to vote for Remain. Admittedly, the top end gets a little bit complicated, but one could say that London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, the three anomalies, are so far away from the rest of the country we should consider them outliers and not count them.
When one discounts those three outliers (London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland), you get an even more interesting chart:
The one anomaly that sticks out there is the South East of England, and to this we can speculate that the Liberal Democrats had a lot of support in that part of the world when the AV referendum occurred and so people voted for the Lib Dem option. Either that or they voted against the EU because the Common Fisheries Policy affected them more than most.
But why are London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland so far away from the rest of the country on the EU and on AV? I really don't know regarding Northern Ireland, because their politics are so far away from the rest of the UK anyway.
Scotland and London, in general elections, is quite far Left wing, and so are in favour of cases such as electoral reform and so on, as well as Right wing parties doing disproportionately badly there: they are, famously, UKIP's least successful hunting grounds; it has now started to gain a foothold in Wales. Unfortunately, the BBC's results page for Election 2015 is not as comprehensive as it was in 2010, for it did not do regions, and as I lack the patience to calculate it myself, we can only guess as to whether there's a correlation there.
Whilst one might retort this with the fact that UKIP are now also in favour of electoral reform, one has to remember they changed their mind after getting oh-so-close in about a million seats in the general election, and they were against AV at the time. I have neither the time nor the patience to go through all 400-odd counting areas, mind you, so I can't break this down any further. For now.
Reason Two: The Generation Game
There has also been much talk about how "old white people" ruined the referendum result and should not have been allowed to vote in it, blah, blah, etc., etc. Now, not only can you ban old people from voting unless you ban terminally ill patients (because they don't have a future too, right?), but I think the first piece of interest here is not that it was the age per se that was the main difference, it is the jobs that these generations take. Our nation very much has its jobs being a generation thing. Allow me to explain.
How many students are between 18-24? Probably about 95% of them, if not more. And practically every University argued for a Remain vote. By contrast, how many 18-24 year old fishermen are there? Virtually zero. And how many fisheries argued for a Remain vote? Virtually none of them, if at all. The age gap came from jobs. How many young people work for JML? Tate & Lyle? These firms supported Leave and the workers did what they thought was best for their job. It correlates (and causes) the age gap.
Now, the turnout of the youth compared even to last year's general election is striking. According to the Intergenerational Foundation, a group that moans about the generation divides, 43% of 18-24 year olds voted in last year's general election. Now that dropped to 36% for the referendum, a drop of 7 percentage points compared to a rise of 6 percentage points across the country as a whole.
There are about 5.9 million 18-24 year olds in the UK (a figure I came up with thanks to a population pyramid and some dodgy maths). Now, if only 36% of them were bothered to turn up, and polls suggest that between 72% and 75% of them voted Remain, if we take the midpoint of that range and apply those two figures, there were only about 1.5 million "Remain" votes from young people.
Would 16-17 year olds have affected the result? No: there's no guarantee as to whether they would turn out or not and as to how they would vote. Even with a full turnout, the Independent says that 16-17 year olds would have to be 93% Remain. Using a bit of GCSE Maths from that figure, there are approximately 1.5 million 16-17 year olds in the UK. A 100% turnout with 100% support for Remain would have resulted in a win for Remain by about 198,000 votes. And that's not accounting for turnout, a less-than-100% Remain support, or any waiverers up the age ladder choosing to Leave on the basis that they "know" Remain would have more support (a theory which is difficult to explain in words).
So let's apply some polling and so on, shall we?
The one poll done had 16-17 year olds at 82% support, so straightaway the result wouldn't have changed. There's no research done on whether they would have turned out, so we have to guess using the following graph (using Sky data) and seeing where what your physics teacher might call "the curve of best fit" goes:
Oh dear. We'll call it about 25%, and so there may only have been an extra 300,000 remain votes overall and an extra 66,000 votes for leave, which would still have kept the margin of Leave's victory above a million votes.
Reason Three: The Even Silenter, Even Bigger Majority
It seems quite clear, that after the general election and now the referendum, that the silent majority are growing in number. Why are the majority silent? Because of what I would call the "violent left" - the kind of people who see the Tories and all Right-leaning people as scum, the kind of people who buy the Socialist Worker (of which there is currently a petition to ban as its actions have contravened the Terrorism Act 2000), the kind of people who protest democracy and election results.
These people tar all Tories as "scum" and screech a lot whenever something doesn't go their way. Think of Margaret Thatcher's death. Or the defacing of the cenotaph after the Conservative victory last year. And now people demand a second referendum because they didn't get their way and want to move the goalposts so that we will have a "neverendum", resulting in Remain, the status quo, winning forever.
As a result, many Tories and Leave voters who aren't every name under the sun stay in the shadows. In 1992 this was called the "Shy Tory" factor, and it's now bigger than ever. Or, rather, it's a "shy (seemingly) unpopular opinion" factor, because it also applied to Gordon Brown in 2010. Over 17.4 million Leave voters cannot all be racists, xenophobes, sexists, etc.. Logically, therefore, there will be people who do not want to be associated with this brush - and that's the beauty of a secret ballot.
I was not as active in the referendum campaign as I had been in others (because the date of the referendum was very poor for me) and so I did not meet as many people as normal. But of the people I did meet from Leave, a lot of them were worried, scared even, and upset that they had been called racists, morons, etc.. Therefore no one wanted to be seen dead in Leave shirts for fear of assault, or even, perhaps death by association, as the NUS have condemned UKIP, Israel, the Holocaust Memorial Day, and cisgender gay men. But not ISIL. Anyway, that's a story for another day.
The "old white people" are under attack from the over-politically-correct violent Left, whose notion of equality is to drive the "pale, male, and stale" into the ground. And this limits freedom of speech as a result. One day, these people may become leader of parties like Labour, the Greens, and so on, which keep getting dragged further left and left by its members (Jeremy Corbyn's crisis springs to mind, I hope he doesn't get bored of IKEA when choosing a new cabinet).
But come election day, when you don't have to say anything, just stroll up to a polling station and put a cross in a box, the silent majority shuffle along to the polling stations and defy the polls. Last year, this led to accusations that David Cameron fixed the election. This year, no one can say such a thing (it's the pens wot won it, of course...).
________________________
I am an amateur at these things, so whilst it might not be accurate it at least goes some way to getting an answer... right? Please feel free to comment below.
I'd love to stay in a reformed European Union. I really would. The problem is that it just doesn't want to reform, and will never reform. In fact, the famous debate in 1990 where Thatcher went "no, no, no" is still relevant. And it's not just me. There are those on the Left who want to leave. There are those who believe in globalisation, so want to leave. And anyone who believes in democracy should want to leave the EU.
DEMOCRACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
The first big problem with the organisation is... er, where the hell is it? It's not like Westminster, where you can stroll up to Parliament and say "this is the British parliament". There are over 90 EU buildings in Brussels alone, as well as a lot more in Strasbourg and Luxembourg. So, straight off the bat, it's not transparent enough to be held accountable.
Now, we all know how British elections work in a constituency. Once every five years, you put a cross on a paper, they're all counted up, and we declare a new Prime Minister. Straightforward. Now, if you try to explain how the EU works without researching it beforehand, then I'll give you £5. There are several main institutions, and, again, £5 to anyone who can tell me the difference without researching it.
What is the difference between the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Commission, and the European Parliament?
There are four Presidents of the EU, for crying out loud. And again, £5 if you can tell me the difference between them without research. This is getting expensive. In fact, Labour MP Kate Hoey says that "I wouldn't profess to understand the detail of how it all works".
Now, who's in charge of the EU?
Er...
Well, name the British Prime Minister. Yep, that's him: David Cameron. Now, name the four Presidents of the EU. Er... um... ah... no... er... no, I'm stuck.
And so that leads us to just how unaccountable the EU really is. I can name two of my MEPs in London, and I don't even know how many represent me. In fact, I'm not sure anyone aside from me knows who their MEPs are. Some friends of mine have even said "what is an MEP?" And that's because MEPs are completely useless - not as people, but in terms of power (the one MEP I know personally is a nice man). The European Parliament cannot propose legislation, initiate legislation, or repeal legislation. It has a strong claim to being the most useless parliament in the world. Only the European Commission can do these things.
Once something is European law, there is NOTHING that can be done to change it.
The European Commission debate laws in secret and we cannot access their deliberations. Jonathan Hill is the Brit on this panel - no, not the ex-Fulham football coach - and no one's ever heard of him in this country. What's more, no one ever voted for him.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that the European Union is not undemocratic, but anti-democratic.
As a result, because they're not accountable, let's have a look at the Brussels gravy train (courtesy of investigations by "Brexit: The Movie"). The following are all inside the EU and open to EU people only: a shopping centre; a hair salon; a sports centre; a sauna; and a massage parlour. In fact, 10,000 Eurocrats are paid more than David Cameron - 1 in 5 of everyone who works for the EU. Yep, they employ a staggering 50,000 people.
But here's yet another list of allowed expenses for EU officials: relocation allowance; household allowance; family allowance; entertainment allowance; private healthcare allowance; private education (for your children) allowance; viagra. MEPs get, on top of this: £250 per day for turning up; £41,000 per year for phone and computer bills; £225,000 per year to cover staffing costs; a lower rate of tax. This is what led to Nigel Farage's expenses scandal.
People also talk a lot about the UK's 'influence' within the EU. Well, the UK has voted against the European Council 72 times, and has been defeated on every single occasion. In addition, only 3.6% of European Commission officials actually come from the UK. So no, we don't have any "influence", and we cannot hold it accountable.
The anti-EU scenes we see in Athens and so on are markedly similar to what we saw in the 1970s in the UK. Strikes, strikes, and more strikes. What we see is the people saying one thing and the Eurocrats saying another, and since the European Parliament is powerless, it is no more than a flowery gesture. Europeans voted in a bunch of far-right parties into it in 2014 to indicate a protest. You could make the argument UKIP counts here too, seeing as it was the first time anyone other than the Conservatives or Labour won a national election since 1910.
The EU could propose the slaughtering of the first born and probably get it through. That's just how undemocratic and anti-democratic the EU really is.
SMALL BUSINESSES
Now, not only does the EU give lots of our money to the Arts in the UK (which is why they're all in favour of a remain vote, the BBC included), they've also destroyed industries altogether. The European Union's quotas system has meant that the UK's fishing waters have been divided up with other nation states, and the British government was powerless to stop this happening. This means that the fisheries in particularly the North East of England are losing out - The Netherlands have rights to an area approximately 3 miles off the coast of the River Tyne. When the non-EU countries, such as Norway, are selling their fish to us, we know we're in trouble. In fact, the EU has even tried to pay off British fishermen to destroy their boats! They foresaw the negative impacts on the UK economy that were to be caused, which makes such a policy even more ridiculous.
Now, a bit of background. Germany and Britain, at different stages, embraced free market policies and saw huge booms in their economies, albeit with a slight time lag. Germany's post-war recovery, free of government intervention, was dubbed an "economic miracle". By contrast, the post-war UK economy consisted of a paternalistic and failing government. There was even a governmental advice video saying that one should leave 18 inches between chairs and furniture. It took nearly 10 years for rationing to go. The economy grew a little, but it had such a low base after the war it was virtually impossible for it to reduce further. What's better to look at was inflation, rationing, and beaurocratism. In the 1970s, we were called the 'sick man of Europe'. When the UK finally adopted the free market in the 1980s, we haven't returned to how it was beforehand, so this is clearly the way forward.
We should have seen what was coming when we signed up to the EEC. Firstly, the architect wasn't German, he was French, and had spent much of the war advising the British government to implement a lot of the regulations that led to the 1970s disaster. Secondly, Ted Heath signed a document so big it required two strong men to carry it. Nowadays, there is so much regulation that (aside from the environmental effects of having so much paper) if one tried to codify it, the regulations would be as high as Nelson's Column. Even the EU themselves won't say how many laws there are.
Only 6% of British businesses export to the continent, so let's have a look at some of the rulings and laws that affect daily life and that domestic firms must abide to even though there's no reason to seeing as they do not export to the continent:
If you can't play the video above, there's a total of over 20,000 laws experienced between the time you wake up and the time you get in your car. [Caution: you may be about to see something Left wing on this blog...] Big businesses don't particularly mind regulation. After all, it keeps the small people out and has the power to lobby for bigger regulations and corrupt the EU at its very cores - note the plural.
In fact, there have been some ridiculous regulations imposed by the EU:
- Bananas must be a certain weight and bendiness
- Children cannot blow up balloons
- Cucumbers must be a certain shape
- You can't eat your pet horse, but you can eat someone else's
Yes, the 6% of firms will need to abide by EU regulations, but similarly, anyone who exports to the US needs to abide by US regulations, anyone who exports to China needs to abide by Chinese regulations... yadda yadda etc etc.
GLOBALISATION AND PROTECTIONISM
Small failing firms cannot compete with their rivals in developing nations. The answer? To stop the UK and other EU nations from trading with such nations, the EU has imposed tariffs, quotas, and regulations. This means that the developing world cannot improve, nor can we import cheaper. This is why the Remain side cry "but we trade with the EU a lot". Because there are no alternatives.
In 1990 Thatcher predicted that "a totally protectionist policy [...] would lead to retaliation against us, reduce the capability of our export industries and therefore our standard of living, and make our industries inefficient and therefore cost the housewife a great deal more. I note also that [people complain] about goods entering Britain from Third world countries where wages are far lower. I have heard [them] say several times [...] that Third world countries need help. They need trade as much as they need aid."
She was right.
Protectionism is only necessary to protect failed industries. The EU is effectively a locked-off country, not willing to trade with anyone else. Cheaper goods give us, consumers, more money - and if we're not willing to trade with anyone outside of the little "band" that is the EU, then that's what happens. Prices have gone up. The consumer has lost out. Living standards have been squeezed. The poor have got poorer.
If we are going to help the Third World, then we need to start trading with them. Think of African producers who can't even sell their goods to us so get no money at all. The third world needs trade as much as it needs aid. And if we think that we can't get foodstuff from Africa, then what are we? And it wouldn't eradicate the UK's economy. Some people in this country (well, my mother did, anyway), always like to "buy British" when possible. So the UK economy would not be eradicated as the Remain side are scaremongering people into telling us.
In fact, the EU is so protectionist that it engaged in a one-way buffer stock scheme, where the government artificially controls supply so that the price is what they want. The EU bought so much produce off the market and allowed it to rot, creating an artificial shortage and higher prices. This led to the infamous "wine lakes" and "butter mountains":
EU protectionism adds between 10% and 20% to the cost of food.
But if you're protecting something so key, such as steel, then this has a knock-on effect to other industries. So not only is the steel industry affected, then so is, basically, the entire manufacturing industry. Tate & Lyle, a sugar company, also suffer for the same reason in the sugar industry. This has cost thousands of jobs and a downsize of 50% in the last six years. In fact, such policies cost the company about £80m per year.
So not only are consumers and producers losing out, but in the long term the protected firm will lose out too. Protecting a firm does not make it more competitive. It is nothing more than a bit of a giveaway. The firm needs reform and throwing money at them won't help. The problem gets worse... and worse. Tariffs on foodstuffs are approximately 12% and manufactured goods 4%. If we leave, is that really such a big price to pay for the 6% of British firms that do export to the EU? No.
The EU is now an economic basket case. Every continent in the world (Antarctica aside) is now outgrowing Europe. The Chinese are leading the way, smashing down the shackles of communism to open up their borders to trade and we've seen the results. Other ex-communist nations are doing the same thing - Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Armenia, Montenegro, Serbia, etc... The EU is the only declining trade bloc in the world. We have shackled ourselves to it.
And now the big question....
COULD WE SURVIVE ON OUR OWN?
One word: Switzerland.
1 - Zurich is the wealthiest city in the world and has the highest quality of life in the world.
2 - Switzerland has Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with many countries in the world.
3 - Swiss exports per head are five times higher than ours.
4 - Swiss unemployment is 4.5%; the EU is 10.2%.
5 - Many leading firms are based there - and it's not in the EU!
6 - GDP per capita is approximately twice as high as the UK.
7 - Average wages are higher than the UK.
8 - It is a more equal country, and high taxes are not existent here. Taxing the rich does not automatically make the poor richer, it drags everyone down to a poor level.
And people say that becoming another Switzerland is a bad thing.
Indeed, Swiss economists say that non-membership of the EU is the sole reason as to why they're doing so well. It's more democratic than the UK (let alone the EU), is one of the least regulated in the world, and even the EU admit Switzerland is ridiculously innovative.
"Ah", I hear you shout, "but won't we need a trade deal?" Er... no. Go to your local shop and note where all the goods are from. Even the import tariffs won't stop people importing from non-EU countries at the moment. But we have no trade deals with some of these countries... and that's the thing. YOU DON'T NEED TRADE DEALS TO TRADE.
But fear not, Remainers, for the EU will want trade deals with us anyway. The EU is desperate to keep the goods flowing into the UK. How many Audis, Volkswagens, BMWs are there on our streets? We are the biggest market for the rest of the EU. We need self-belief and self-confidence. They need us more than we need them. And because we don't needtrade deals to trade, we hold all the negotiating cards.
But trade deals are still useful. However, the EU are rubbish at them. The GDP of the countries with which the EU has trade deals with combines to £5trn. But Switzerland's are nearly six times that at £29trn, Singapore seven times the EU at £35trn, and South Korea nine times at £45trn. Tiny Chile has trade deals with countries whose GDP sums to £50trn! Even if you add to the EU the value of its own internal market, you're still only on £18trn.
Leaving the EU would mean we could race through some of these deals. Even Obama's "back of the queue" comment is meaningless considering we'd be only second in line. There's so much potential in the UK economy shackled by the EU. And we're already seeing new firms, new businesses in the UK. Over 400,000 new businesses in the last five years. And leaving the EU and such shackles could cause rapid expansion and the end to the oligopolistic firms in energy, transport, and so on. We can do it.
CONCLUSION
OK, there are some benefits to the EU. Cheaper phone rates, fags, holidays, and booze abroad. But that's really not worth all of the cons.
Do we want to be governed by an anti-democratic organisation that can impose laws, rules, and regulations on us? A vote for the European project? For greater political integration? For an economic basket case?
There will be no second referendum, despite what Farage may say. This is an unbelievable opportunity. And we need to grasp it by both hands to create the better Britain everybody wants.
Swing is a very British concept. The transition of voters from one party to another. Popularised by psephologists David Butler and Robin McKenzie, the swingometer has been a staple of British election nights since the 1950s. But could it be used for an American presidential election?
Taking cue from Peter Snow, I will be showing you exactly what could happen on US Election Night. The difficulty is that the swing in America is not uniform at all, so the swingometer may be completely pointless.
Indeed, Donald Trump need not do well in certain states in order to win the election. In contrast to the 150-200 seats at British general elections that change hands, only 10 out of 56 (don't ask) states have the potential to change hands. They are referred to as "swing states" and so the swing in these 10 states determines all the difference. Swing variation in these states in America is incredibly high, so it's left to us, the Brits, to act like sheep, wafting from Labour to the Conservatives and vice versa in unison.
But could you actually use a swingometer for the US presidential election?
Yes.
And here it is.
The first thing that jumps out is just how well Barack Obama did four years ago. There's not much realistic territory for Hilary Clinton to get into as a result. Only North Carolina could she take, otherwise she would need a swing of 3.6% to take the next state, Nebraska's 2nd District. And no, that's not a rule from Mornington Crescent.
Because Obama won every "swing state" save for North Carolina, Donald Trump has a mountain to climb. Trump needs a uniform swing of 3.7%. After the Obama landslide in 2008, Mitt Romney could only muster up a swing of 1.7%, and so Trump really needs to do well.
That said, because Obama did so well, it will be difficult for Clinton to obtain a swing to the Democrats. A swing to Clinton of 1% would take North Carolina, giving her an extra 15 seats in the electoral college (don't ask).
In fact, the target list for Clinton is quite thin, and it's more that she will be looking to hang on rather than attack. Resultantly, Trump's target list is quite expansive, and there are some winnable targets on here:
The nine swing states that Romney didn't win are listed as Trump's targets. Florida might just go to Trump because the majority for the Democrats was so narrow, a swing of just 0.4% would take this. The opinion polls, however, for Florida, strangely are very similar to the swing we are currently seeing in the opinion polls nationally - so maybe there may not be such huge swing variations this time around. Applying the current swing we see nationally to Florida, we are within the margin of error for that state's latest poll, which has Clinton on 43% and Trump on 42%; the uniform swing has 42% for Clinton and 41% for Trump.
But if Florida stays blue, then Trump has no chance. As well as holding North Carolina, he needs to win Flordia, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Pennsylvania (in order of difficulty) to get into the White House. The other four "swing states" of New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, and Wisconsin are only worth 26 electoral college votes, and so if Trump loses Florida, Clinton is the US president.
If Trump takes Florida (as well as holding North Carolina), then he still needs Ohio, one of the first key marginals to declare. Losing this would be a disaster because he would still then need to go down as far as Wisconsin on the board even if he takes Florida.
Trump won't particularly mind if Virginia goes blue, because he then won't need to take Wisconsin. Similarly, if he wins those top three but loses Colorado, he need only take New Hampshire (4) and Iowa (6) to compensate. Pennsylvania is the other key state and, like Florida, is worth north of 20 votes. Consequently, lose this and he will need to take the other four states.
However, lose two of those five states and Trump is toast. If disaster occurs for Trump and he loses both Florida and Pennsylvania (but takes the other three) then he'll need a miracle and ridiculous swings to win. He'd have to go deep into Democrat territory to win. On top of the remaining "swing states", he'll need to take (in order of difficulty): Maine's 2nd District (4.3% swing neeeded); Minnesota (4.4%); and Michigan (4.8%).
Trump's only chance, then, would be for Gary Johnson, the (probable) Libertarian candidate, to take votes off the Democrats. Can that happen? Gary Johnson is what the Brits might call a "Thatcherite" (and is my personal choice for president), and so it seems more probable that he will take votes off many of the centrist or slightly-right-of-centre voters that voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. Johnson is polling at north of 10% currently though. What we don't know is who he's taking these votes off. Swing time! The last national poll to include Johnson has Clinton on 42%, Trump on 34%, and Johnson on 11%. Using that, here are the swings:
So it's evidently quite clear - Johnson is taking more votes off Republicans than he is off Democrats. So that sinks Trump.
But can Johnson win anything in terms of the electoral college?
Johnson cannot win any votes for the electoral college with these kind of swings, though, because of just how badly the Libertarians did in 2012. The best result was in the not-too-safe state of New Mexico, where the Libertarians polled 3.5%. Now, if that swing was replicated in New Mexico, Johnson would have around 15%, but the winning candidate (which should be Clinton) will still have about 44%. Trump would have around 35%. Again, this matches (near enough) the state opinion poll for New Mexico, so maybe America will behave more uniformly this time around.
And after all that, it's time to ask the question for the other side - can the Democrats do any better than they did in 2012?
We've gone down to #6 on this list because Barack Obama managed to take Indiana in 2008 - but Romney won this back in 2012. It's not considered a "swing state", but as Obama had this in 2008 it's worth using as a barometer for a Clinton landslide.
North Carolina is the first example of non-uniformity - and so this may get shoved into Democrat territory so much so that whoever the Republican candidate is in 2020 will struggle to win it. Here's the uniform projection versus the state poll - and the swing for the state poll:
If the swing we see in the state poll of a whopping 7% from Republicans to Democrats is typical across all of America, then Clinton is looking at whatever a "landslide" is in America - 414 electoral college votes. She'd win Nebraska's 2nd (3.6% swing needed), Georgia (3.9%), Arizona (4.6%), Missouri (4.7%), Indiana (5.1%), South Carolina (5.3%), Mississipi (5.8%), and Montana (6.9%), giving her an extra 82 on the 332 Obama had four years ago.
How do the state polls in those seats shape up? Georgia shows a swing to the Democrats of 2%, Arizona 2.5% to the Democrats, Missouri's polls are too wide-ranging to be conclusive (so this could fall on the night to the Democrats!), Indiana 1.5% to the Democrats, and Mississipi 4% to the Democrats. In the other states listed above no polls have been done. But there's a pattern here - that the Republicans seem to be doing badly in their own states and matching the uniform swing in the Democrat-held swing states.
So if North Carolina goes, Trump needs to win those five states we talked about earlier as well as the next three.
The uniform national swing shown on the swingometer is this:
It's oh-so-close to taking Florida, but not quite.
Looking at all the evidence above, I'm calling the election for CLINTON. The rise of Johnson to take votes away from the Romney-ites, the failure of Trump in his own states, and the likelihood of Clinton taking Florida gives Trump virtually no chance.
Firstly, I will not be blogging on the London Mayoral Election in large detail for one simple reason. The way the campaign has been run by Khan, accusing Goldsmith's supporters of Islamophobia, is untrue. Goldsmith has never referred to Khan by his religion, and no one is suggesting that he has extreme views. Khan does, however, have serious questions to answer on his judgement, including publishing a step-by-step guide on how to sue the Metropolitan Police, and he cannot be allowed to shout "islamophobia" to close these questions down.
On the issues themselves, Zac Goldsmith's Action Plan for London is fully costed and has the best policies of anyone. However, these have all been shielded because of the poor campaigning tactics started by Khan. Dispute that? Well, he was the one who took the term "radical" out of context, when Goldsmith claimed that his political views were "radical" and "divisive".
Anyhow, I digress.
Khan's fares freeze will cost TFL £1.9bn - and that is in Mike Brown (TFL Commissioner)'s own words. Khan denies that Brown has said this, but it is on tape.
What I particularly like is Zac's plan to solve the housing crisis. Not only has he pledged to build lots of homes, but he will do so without expanding onto the green belt - and (this is the clever bit) - has promised to unlock the land by investing in transport, because it's no good building houses in the middle of nowhere.
I was shown today Inequality Briefing's videos on wealth and income inequality, and I found myself smashing my head on the desk within seconds of them. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Wealth inequality's myths have already been debunked by a contributor to Forbes, describing it as "brain-curdling nonsense", but as far as I know, income inequality has not yet been disproved.
"Brenda is an experienced nurse; [...] Brian is the boss of one of Britain's biggest companies."
We've not even got a fact yet and it's already ridiculous. In the United Kingdom, inequality is always going to arise due to the fact that the UK is a mixed economy: it is reasonable to presume that Brenda is a public sector worker, as 94% of all NHS operations are public sector, and Brenda apparently works at "one of Britain's busiest hospitals". The public sector is nationalised (by definition), and everyone knows that nationalisation does not work. It is extremely inefficient, thanks to hopeless central planning, and therefore a lack of market pressures upon wages (in either direction). By contrast, the private sector is free from government interference. Therefore, wages are free to go up or down to meet the demand of the market - according to the Independent, private sector wages are growing three times as fast as public sector ones. The private sector is, loosely speaking, meritocratic. The inefficient public sector is not. Therefore, we shouldn't even be comparing an NHS worker to a CEO.
"Wages for average earners like Brenda have hardly changed in a decade, whilst food prices are going up, and gas and electricity bills are rising."
Let's divide this one into three - "wages [...] have hardly changed in a decade" apparently. No, they haven't. If we take "a decade" to mean the period of 2004 - 2014, wage growth rose in real terms every single year until the "great recession" in 2008, and have done so again since 2014. "Food prices are going up", apparently, and "gas and electricity bills are rising". Now, seeing as I am unable to find tabulated data for gas and electricity for me to create my own graph, we'll just have to use one from one of the UK's major energy suppliers to retailers, which tracks retail pricing. But yes, as for wages and food, it's time for one of Benjamin's Blog's own graphs (because I know you love them really). According to the data at Trading Economics, we are now going to draw a line graph with two lines on it - average wage growth and food prices since January 2014 (thus keeping the video relevant, as it was produced in 2014). Are you ready?
So energy prices are falling, food prices are falling, and wages are rising. Indeed, since January 2014, food prices have only risen in real terms in two out of 23 months (for which data exists). Forbes are right - inequality briefing, so far, is nothing but a bunch of brain-curdling nonsense. And we're still not even a third of the way through...
"Most people in poverty in the UK are actually in work."
This is referring to relative poverty, and therefore is not a sufficient measure. Living standards have, as we've seen above, been rising since January of 2014.
"As people on average incomes are increasingly squeezed, less money is spent on our high streets."
Even though we've already disputed the first clause of this statement above here, this statement nonetheless is a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc - if two things occur at the same time and one assumes that one causes the other absurdly, this is a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Why is this particular statement a case of the above? High street spending fell thanks to the recession, but it has been growing since 2013, and internet sales have increased all throughout this period. The Portas Review, released in 2011, and available here (don't read this from cover to cover, it's very boring), estimates that internet sales accounted for 50% of the growth of the retail sector between 2003 and 2010. The same report also predicts internet sales to rise substantially by 2015 - a prediction that was borne out to be true.
[Goes on to argue for redistributive taxation]
In terms of pre-taxation, the British Gini coefficient is actually one of the most equal countries in the world pre-taxation and transfers, according to the OECD. This means that the wage distribution in itself is actually what some people might describe as "fair". Even when you apply the taxation laws, our Gini coefficient drops further, and the amount of people in relative poverty in the UK is extremely small. So why do some countries drop further than others? Simple - it's the negative effects that redistribute taxation have. You can't stifle wealth creation at the top, otherwise they'll pack up and leave to other countries. And then there won't be any wealth. The businesses owned by the super-rich that others depend on will therefore close down too, as they can't afford to operate with these levels of taxation in the UK. Oh, oops, it's an essential service and a natural monopoly. Ah. That means that the people can't actually use the service at all now. That means that with redistribute taxation, we are all worse off. But still, for the people who have had their brains curdled, it doesn't matter that the poor are poorer, because we're more equal and the rich are less rich.
In any case, INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM IS FALLING. Don't believe me? Well, have a look at perhaps maybe the graph on the right, with data according to the World Bank? Still don't believe me? How about we try that Left-wing rag, colloquially referred to as "The Gruniad", thanks to its colossal backlog of spelling errors in the 1970s? Surely if this admits that anything other than a Labour government are reducing inequality, it must be true. It would be like the Daily Mail praising Jeremy Corbyn. And what's that, Gruniad? Income inequality in the UK is actually falling? Surely there's no disputing it now. Even in the global economy, income inequality is falling according to this article.
So, if you're from Inequality Briefing, stop scaremongering, and actually #ShareTheFacts.
I'm currently in my final year of school. For six hours per week, I have Politics, whereupon my teacher and I often have a fascinating discussion on a three-letter suffix, and where it can be applied: "-ism".
Socialism exists as an ideology, so does Liberalism, and Conservativism. Within these, you have your "sub-ideologies": socialism can be broken down into Marxism (original and orthodox), social democratism, and Blairism; Liberalism can be broken down into Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism, as well as neo-Liberalism; Conservativism can be broken down into Traditional Conservativism, One Nation Conservativism, and Thatcherism (or "New Rightism").
Not one person, Left, Right, or centre, would deny that "Thatcherism" is a distinct political ideology, not dissimilar to monetarism. So why doesn't John Major's government get the same treatment? I've only ever seen the term "Majorism" used once by the media, in 2011. However, as I shall now demonstrate, Majorism is clearly a distinct politico-economic ideology. Do I follow it? Not really, I'm more of a Thatcherite.
ECONOMICS
Whilst continuing some Thatcherite economic policies, such as privatisation (such as the 1993 privatisation of the rail network), Major had a economic ideology largely very different to Thatcher, contrary to popular belief.
1 - DEVALUATION
In the aftermath of "Black Wednesday" in 1992, the pound crashed against the Deutschmark, to which it was being pegged after Lawson and Howe bullied Thatcher into going into it in 1989. The Government were forced to take it out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), as it had dropped below its lower limit.
Such a "flash crash" would, surely, cause the pound to go back up soon-ish? No - and with Lamont out of the door, Major decides to adopt an economic policy that is more different than Thatcher's. The pound is kept at a deliberately 'weak' level. What does a weak pound cause? An emphasis - and increases the value of - exports, with the drawback that imports are more expensive. Hence, people stopped importing goods, start exporting them, and we end up with export-led growth.
2 - SMALL GOVERNMENT
Another key factor of Majorism is to do with budget responsibility. Thatcher did not tend to operate a budget surplus - but after the introduction of Majorism in 1992, the budget deficit does not rise once. With New Labour pledging in 1997 (but not 2001) to stick to the Conservatives' spending plans in this department (and they do stick to their word until the second term), we can attribute the fiscal period of 1993 - 2001 as Majorist economic budget responsibility. The budget deficit does not rise once - by 1998, this even hits a surplus.
By 2001, government spending as a percentage of GDP is at its lowest level since records began - and even the current Conservative government will not get this low (they were on course to, but minor changes to the economic forecast in the March 2015 budget means that they are no longer on course to "beat the record"). Thatcher didn't really decrease government spending as a percentage of GDP in this way.
3 - UNEMPLOYMENT
Thatcher believed in the notion that controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. Whatever your views on this statement, during the Majorism period of 1993 - 2001, save for the introduction of the National Minimum Wage in 1998, unemployment falls at a steady and constant rate. After Chancellor Gordon Brown is no longer bound by the New Labour manifesto to stick to Majorism in 2001, unemployment flattens out. He does this by increasing job opportunities for those out of work - one of the founding principles of the "back to basics" campaign of 1992.
4 - INTEREST RATES
This is difficult to attribute all the way through the 1993 - 2001 period, as the Bank of England became responsible for setting monetary policy in 1997. But even looking between 1993 and 1997, when monetary policy was still within the government's control, the government had more control of interest rates after "Black Wednesday" than it did between 1989 and 1992. Interest rates hit a 20-year low under Majorism, as unlike Thatcher, inflation was not seen as a huge problem. Indeed, from a historical perspective, according to the BBC's "Back In Time For Dinner", the sheer amount of products available in the early 1990s, with a tin of beans being able to be purchased for just 3p, for example, meant that controlling inflation harshly, as had been done right up until 1992, was no longer necessary. Despite this, inflation continued to fall.
Whilst being slightly speculatory, it can be argued that the Bank of England adopted Majorism until 2001, too: the range interest rates were in in this period were where they were between 1994 and 1997. Lo and behold: post-2001, they're dropped below their Majorite trough of 5%, and inflation starts rising.
SOFT EUROSCEPTICISM
With the thorny issue of the European Union ripping the Conservative Party to shreds in the late 1980s (taking Thatcher along with it) and early 1990s, John Major attempted to balance the extreme views on both sides of his party by adopting a policy of soft Euroscepticism.
1 - OPT-OUT ON THE SINGLE CURRENCY
John Major was caught between a rock and a hard place when it came to the thorny issue of the Euro; on the one hand, he had Ken Clarke et al - those who wish for full European integration, including the adoption of the single currency, and the Europhiles responsible for driving out Thatcher. On the other hand, he had John Redwood et al - the hard Eurosceptics who didn't want us to go into the single currency, or any single market at all. So when John Major went to Maastricht in 1992 to negotiate and sign the Treaty on the European Union, he declared the opt-out he'd secured on the Euro "game, set, and match for Britain".
2 - VETO
This turned out to be a case of "out of the frying pan, and into the fire", but at the time, he was praised by the Eurosceptics of his party for doing so. After the hated Jacques Delors (who Thatcher repeatedly mocked during her final years) was to be replaced as President of the European Commission, Major vetoed the appointment of Jean-Luc Dehaene, who wanted a European super-state. He was praised for this - but the "out of the frying pan, and into the fire" came when he found out they'd ended up with a clone of him instead, Jacques Santer.
3 - BACK TO THE PARTY
Tony Blair was always very good at being able to turn a soundbite. In 1997, one memorable edition of Prime Minister's Questions featured the quotation of Blair calling Major "weak, weak, weak" on the issue of Europe. But if one watches the full eight minutes, Major easily wins on substance, and says that he will ask his PPCs what the position on the EU should be, unlike Tony Blair, who told his PPCs what to think regarding Europe. Before the "referendum craze" of New Labour, this was as close as it got to the people having a direct say.
FOREIGN POLICY
There's not really a sub-heading I can use here, as it's very easily summarised: not attempting to take sides in conflicts where Britain is not directly threatened. For example, John Major oversaw the war occurring after the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1991, culminating in the war in Bosnia & Herzegovina in 1993. Major and his cabinet did not wish to get actively involved in it.
COMPARISONS WITH THE CAMERON GOVERNMENT
1 - ECONOMICS
Many people associate the current Conservative front bench with being Thatcherites - when Majorites is a better description of them economically:
- A weaker pound in order to promote export-led growth;
- Driving down the deficit and getting into a budget surplus;
- Driving down unemployment through the Work Programme;
- Record low interest rates alongside low inflation.
2 - EUROPE
David Cameron is a pure Majorite when it comes to Europe:
- Secured an cut in the EU budget in 2012 in real terms;
- Vetoed a treaty that was against the UK's national interest;
- Given a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.
3 - FOREIGN POLICY
Cameron's foreign policy is more interventionist than Major's, but less so than Blair's.
It is unambiguously clear to me that Majorism, as a distinct political ideology, exists. There are distinct policy ideas when it comes to Politics and Economics - although one does have to attribute that it is hard for him to make sweeping changes, considering he was continuing from a previous Conservative government.
I would argue that David Cameron's Conservative government is a Majorite government, not a Thatcherite one, as I have indicated above. (I may go into further detail on this in a later blog post, but I won't promise anything.)
It's Monday 6 July 2015, and in two days' time, another Ashes series is about to begin. It will be another Ashes series - and another test series - that I am unable to see in full, as it is being broadcast live on Sky Sports. I am not the billpayer in my household and so getting this (legally, at least) is out of my hands. Thankfully, I've timed my holidays by renting out some lovely cottages 'up naaaarth' which do possess this facility.
The final ever ball of live cricket on terrestrial TV.
Not a single ball of live cricket has been broadcast on terrestrial television since 1 June 2014, when the Kolkata Knight Riders defeated the Kings XI Punjab by three wickets in the Indian Premier League final, live on ITV4. As someone who hates the IPL, with its "leg side wides" and the improper shots (show Don Bradman the 'back away and swing' and he'd go absolutely ape), does this really count in any case? The final ball was bowled by a player I've never heard of to a batsman I've never heard of, who hit it for four over backward point.
The final ball of live test cricket was a big anticlimax, and this one I remember distinctly. On Monday 12 September 2005, Steve Harmison bowled a ball in the dark to Justin Langer, which glanced off his pads, beat Geraint Jones, and went for four leg byes. Australia now needed 338 runs to win with 14.2 overs left in the game, and Justin Langer called Matthew Hayden, Rudi Koertzen, and Billy Bowden together, and they all agreed that the light was too bad. The match was drawn, and England regained the Ashes. Unsurprisingly, this has never found its way onto the internet.
The BBC hasn't broadcast a single ball in highlights form (excluding news reports) since the 2006-07 Ashes series, when England were trounced 5-0. The last ball in highlights form was Matthew Hayden hitting the winning runs at Sydney. Their last live ball was in 1998.
Is there actually an appetite for terrestrial broadcasters to broadcast cricket? The answer is a resounding no. According to a 2015 BBC report, Sky are shelling out £65m (per year, presumably) for the rights to every single ball - live - faced by the England cricket team. Consider the fact that Channel 4, between 2002 and 2005, shelled out £150m, it's very rare for rights costs to go down for any sport. Sky would only have been able to get a reduction if no one else was willing to pay for the rights. Certainly, the furore over the 2013-14 Ashes highlights definitely shows that no one wants to broadcast cricket on terrestrial television. If you're unaware what happened, the BBC and ITV both pulled out at the last minute, causing Sky to take it upon themselves and put highlights on Pick TV, their Free-To-Air channel. It was such a last minute decision that it even ended with "next on Sky Sports 2...", until David Gower provided some "top and tail" to the programmes after Adelaide.
The BBC are shelling out £60m for the flailing "Match Of The Day", £70m per year for Wimbledon, £15m for shared (and poor) F1 coverage (according to the F1 Broadcasting Blog), and suddenly, it all adds up. Put that money on the table to the ECB, and with the allure, and the inspiration, no doubt, that comes with terrestrial television, and the ECB may just go with the BBC. Consider that the BBC may be paying for the Radio rights as it is (although I doubt it), there's more money that could be saved if the BBC took a Radio + TV deal as one, rather than two deals.
One of England's best batting performances ever, stuck behind a £40 paywall.
I don't wish to take away anything from the excellent Sky coverage, which has broadcast every English overseas test live since 1990 (which I don't think had been done before), and continues to go from strength to strength. The trouble is that no one watches cricket any more. Even with pay-per-view TV, cricket is still higher in the ratings than it was for the 2001 Ashes series, live on Channel 4, but it is nowhere near the viewing figures for 2005 (Channel 4) or indeed, 2009 (Sky).
But why do so many more people watch - and are interested in - football than they are cricket, when 10 years ago, the opposite was true? Neither have the main event broadcast live on terrestrial television (the Premier League vs English tests). So where does the blame lie for the failure of cricket in the last 10 years? The England team for not doing well enough? No, they were world #1 in 2011. What about the other side of the coin? What has football done right that cricket hasn't? The BBC haven't made a mess of their highlights show in the same way Channel 5 have. "Cricket on Five" is terrible and is ridiculously poor, and is basically the very worst of Channel 4's coverage over the years. Limiting itself to just Mark Nicholas, Geoffrey Boycott, Simon Hughes, Michael Vaughan since 2011, and occasionally a few others, it's nowhere near the better Match Of The Day. So what Channel 5 must do is have a complete rethink. For starters, don't put ODI highlights on at 1am...
I've just written a lengthy piece and I haven't come to any conclusion. What can be done? The BBC don't want it and ITV gave it all up. It's quite cheap in relation to other sports. Sky is the only reasonable option. Sky really should put the Ashes live on Pick, but that ruins their business model. Until the BBC stump up the courage to dump some of its ENDLESS Wimbledon coverage, we're stuck without cricket for a long time.
