Doug

So, polling day tomorrow. And as is my usual practice, and as you might have guessed from my statement at the start of the campaign, I shall be spoiling my ballot paper, because I don't believe in representative democracy and particularly don't want to vote for any of the candidates. I don't have time to spell out all of my reasons, but it's rather linked to my anarchism, as you might imagine.



Suggestions welcome for what to write - previous efforts have included "THEY'RE ALL A LOAD OF USELESS BLOODY LOONIES" and "ANARCHY IS ORDER, GOVERNMENT IS CIVIL WAR", but they all suffer from taking so much longer to write on the ballot than putting an X that the ballot staff get all restive. I haven't even attempted "BIGGER CAGES! LONGER CHAINS!", "BE REALISTIC - DEMAND THE IMPOSSIBLE" or Lenin's "WHEN THERE IS FREEDOM THERE WILL BE NO GOVERNMENT". I quite like "SOUS LES PAVÉS, LA PLAGE" but writing in French on the ballot seems slightly - well, bourgeois, and absolutely nobody would get it. "I have done "NONE OF THEM", which has the merit of brevity, and also beats "NONE OF THE ABOVE" for accuracy since the space to write in on ballot papers is up the side where the X is supposed to go, rather than the bottom.

When she was about four, a niece of mine had a great line when offered a set of unduly constraining choices. If a parent asked "Do you want peas or cabbage?" (a classic parenting ploy), she would politely but firmly say "No thank you."

I think I might write "NO THANK YOU", perhaps with a circled-A in the middle. Unless you people have a more entertaining idea?


This is partly for my own retrospective benefit so I can see what things looked like before the event - otherwise I would claim more foresight than I in fact have. The outcome is not clear.

The polls seem to be in this sort of range:
Con: 32%-36%
Lab: 27%-30%
LibDem: 25%-32%

Polling methodology: drdoug eyeballing various poll-of-polls data for the last fortnight and then tweaking slightly for no good reason. I note that the Labour vote seems to be most consistently estimated, with Con/LibDem varying more broadly.

The different polling organisations seem to have more divergent estimates than in previous elections. I predict that the polling organisation whose results happen to come closest to the actual results will claim that this totally vindicates their approach. Don't get me started on the Evil Nonsense that is implying that an estimate of the sampling error is anything approaching the 'margin of error' of a poll like this.

It's worth noting that the national vote share may be politically very important for the first time I can remember. But it looked that way in 1983 and it turned out not to be, so who knows?

I suspect that this underestimates Tory support - despite the corrections for Shy Tory effects. I think they're stronger this election than ever. I also think there's more uncertainty in the polls, since there are a larger number of people saying they're undecided or not definite - although the numbers have been relatively stable in this sort of range for a long time (in politics - meaning about a week or two). There could be a startling Lib Dem surge; I suspect not but it's possible. A stunning Labour surge seems very unlikely indeed. It's worth noting that the Tories are in real trouble compared to where they were a year or so ago when they had a margin over Labour of 15-20 percentage points.

As to how that pans out in terms of seats ... well, my one strong feeling is that it's harder than ever to say. In very rough terms the consensus of forecasts is around 300/200/100 Con/Lab/LibDem, usually with Con near but definitely short of a majority by more than they can conceivably rustle up from minor parties and independents. But something more like 270/270/80 is entirely possible, depending how the entirely fictional 'uniform national swing' translates in to actual results. A Labour plurality is not impossible, but seems unlikely. More than 100 Lib Dem seats would be a huge triumph; a plurality is not going to happen.

So my best guess is Con to get a plurality, short of a majority, and certainly short of a comfortable working majority not vulnerable to rebellions, by-elections and voting lobby ambushes.

What'll happen in that case? Hard to say, like everything, but I expect a Tory minority Government.

I also expect within a very short space of time that they will announce that the Government books are even worse than Labour admitted (perhaps using the ruse of an IMF audit of accounts, as helpfully suggested by their City chums at the weekend), particularly given the smoke-and-mirrors hide-the-debt stuff they've been up to. (They'd have a bit of a point about that, except everyone's known about it and I don't remember a principled opposition to PFI on these grounds.) This it's-so-much-worse-than-they-said and blame-your-predecessor argument will be enough to get huge spending cuts through.

Bit grim really. And a Labour administration wouldn't have either of those excuses to soften the blow.

One comment I do feel well qualified to make. Cameron campaigned through the night last night. Now, he is way better than I am at electoral politics, but I fancy I know a lot more about sleep deprivation than he does. He's a fool. He'll get next to no sleep tonight, even less tomorrow night, and on Friday will almost certainly be facing the political challenge of his lifetime, probably under serious time pressure. Not good to skip on the sleep beforehand. Bad for the old judgement. If Cameron does something startling after the results are in, this will be why.