From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The vagaries of electoral politics (was Re: Rule Britannia)
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:42:09 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Nov17.095042.313@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

>From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
>>Let me see now... (consults program)... in Sutton the Tories got
>>55.2% of the vote and the LibDems got 33.8% .  Thus it would
>>need a 10.7% swing to the LibDems next time for them to take
>>the seat.  I'm not saying this is impossible -- there were
>>bigger swings at the last election -- but it does mean that
>>the LibDems are unlikely to take Sutton in the near future.
>
>This has to be put in the context of the media, including the
>supposedly neutral BBC, failing to report the Lib Dems' case
>properly. Not once on the BBC during the election did I ever
>hear discussion of the fact that in a substantial part of the
>country it was a Tory-LibDem fight, not a Tory-Labour fight,
>the election was discussed entirely in Tory v. Lanbour terms.
>The BBC even brought back the "swingometer" which totally
>discounts the LibDems.

That's a fair point, but I don't think you can really blame
the BBC for everything, any more than the Labour Party can
blame the Sun and the Daily Mail for everything.  The BBC
did stick to the 5:5:4 airtime arrangement over the election
period.  (This is pretty generous to the LibDems, by the way;
if you're judging by their share of the vote at the previous
election, it ought to be more like 6:5:3.)  However, outside
the formal election period the coverage given to LibDem
spokespeople is pretty patchy.  That's the problem with
everything being run from Westminster; in terms of day-to-day
policy it doesn't matter what a party's level of support is
in the country, it only matters how much strength it has in
Parliament.

To get back to the original point, here's my version of the
swingometer, in glorious ASCII (eat your heart out Peter Snow):

               <---- Swing to Labour ---*--- Swing to LibDem ---->
                6%  5%  4%  3%  2%  1%  0%  1%  2%  3%  4%  5%  6%
Tory change    -31 -27 -25 -20 -16  -8   0  +5  +7 +10 +22 +24 +27  
Labour change  +38 +34 +32 +25 +20 +10   0  -7 -11 -17 -29 -32 -42
LibDem change   -7  -7  -7  -5  -4  -2   0  +2  +4  +7  +7  +8 +14

               <----- Swing to Tory ----*--- Swing to LibDem ---->
                6%  5%  4%  3%  2%  1%  0%  1%  2%  3%  4%  5%  6%
Tory change    +51 +43 +39 +24 +15  +9   0 -13 -25 -34 -43 -51 -61
Labour change  -38 -31 -28 -17 -10  -6   0  +9 +18 +23 +29 +30 +34
LibDem change  -11 -10  -9  -5  -5  -3   0  +4  +7 +11 +14 +20 +25

               <---- Swing to Labour ---*---- Swing to Tory ----->
                6%  5%  4%  3%  2%  1%  0%  1%  2%  3%  4%  5%  6%
Tory change    -89 -79 -57 -42 -33 -20   0 +12 +31 +44 +56 +65 +68  
Labour change  +80 +73 +52 +36 +30 +19   0 -11 -29 -39 -49 -58 -62
LibDem change   +7  +5  +5  +6  +3  +1   0  -1  -2  -3  -5  -5  -5

The figures are based on the actual results of the last election
and the assumption (dodgy, I know) of a uniform national swing in
each case.  As you can see, if the LibDems take votes from Labour
nationally the main beneficiaries would be the Tories.  A 2% swing
from the LibDems to Labour would get rid of 16 Tory MPs.

Obviously this is all a bit crude since people will vote differently
depending on what type of seat they're in (they'd be mad to switch
from the LibDems to Labour in Brecon and Radnor, for instance).  But,
in terms of a general national trend, it does seem that voting Labour
would have a much greater effect in dislodging Tory MPs than voting
LibDem.
--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk