The polls aren’t moving. What does that mean?

Given that the British government has been lurching from crisis to crisis, and that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has faced mountains of negative media coverage, you might expect public opinion to have shifted dramatically back and forth depending upon the latest news. After all, between April 2017 and the post-election period of June 2017, Labour’s average poll rating rose from 27% to 44% - an increase of 18 percentage points (5.6m votes) in just two months. We are not exactly living in an era of political stability.

And yet, since Theresa May lost her majority in June 2017, neither party has managed to lead the other by an average of more than 3pts, as shown in the table below.

Indeed, most of the time the parties have been ‘statistically tied’. This means that whilst one party may be in the ‘lead’, that lead is so small (just 1pt according to the latest poll average) that we really don’t know what public opinion is. It could, within a reasonable “margin of error”, go either way. The British Polling Council explains it like this: 

“All polls are subject to a wide range of potential sources of error. On the basis of the historical record of the polls at recent general elections, there is a 9 in 10 chance that the true value of a party’s support lies within 4 points of the estimates provided by this poll, and a 2 in 3 chance that they lie within 2 points."

In other words, if the Tories are on 39% and Labour is on 39% in a poll, that doesn’t mean both parties would be tied if an election was held tomorrow. Instead, what it tells us is either party could be ahead. With the normal margin of error on a party’s vote share being plus or minus 4pts, the Tories could really be as high as 43% - or as low as 35%.

Essentially, when any party is leading by less than 10pts, the specific numbers don’t really matter. If the polls are effectively tied, it means we really have no idea how an election tomorrow would go. The Tories could win by a big margin or get defeated decisively. Conversely, if one party is leading by a significant margin well outside the margin of error (e.g. by 25pts), they’d be very likely to win the popular vote in an election held tomorrow – probably not by the predicted margin, but they’d win it nonetheless. Bear in mind that in the final polls for the 2017 election, the Tories’ average lead was 7pts – they did indeed go on to win the popular vote, but by a much smaller margin of 2pts.

Given all of this, what can we tell from the opinion polls since June 2017? Here are some things we know for sure:

1. We don’t really know who is more popular: Labour or the Conservatives.

Sometimes political parties achieve large leads over their opposition in the polls that show unambiguously who is more popular at that moment. For example, in April 2017 the Conservatives were, on average, 18pts ahead of Labour, which would have given them a majority of 100 seats in the Commons. In one poll they had a staggering 25pt lead. Yet in the 15 months since the 2017 election, the biggest average lead achieved by either major party has been just 3pts (usually just 1pt!), and no party has been projected to win a majority on the 650-seat boundaries in any month since June. The maximum lead by any party in an individual poll has been 8pts, and that has only happened once or twice.

Individual polls have shown varied results when it comes to the major parties, sometimes to the point of being absurdly different. In March, Labour was leading by 7pts with Survation but trailing by 3pts with YouGov in the same week. Recent polls have varied from a 4pt lead for Labour to a 5pt lead for the Conservatives. The only story being told by the polls is that either major party could win the popular vote if an election was held tomorrow.

2. The major parties have leaked a little support to minor parties, but not much.

In the 2017 general election, the two biggest parties won a combined 84.5% of the popular vote in Great Britain, the biggest combined share in over 40 years. The Lib Dems went backwards, achieving their lowest share of the vote since 1959 (7.6%), UKIP collapsed from 13% to 2% and the Green Party lost half their vote. The SNP, meanwhile, retained a majority of Scottish seats, but lost 11pts in vote share and 21 seats.

Since the election, minor parties’ support has slightly increased. The combined vote share of the two major parties is down to 77% (-8%), but no particular minor party has benefitted from this. The Lib Dems and Greens have each gained 1pt since the general election, barely edging up at all. UKIP has gained 3pts in the polls and is currently averaging at 5% of the vote, whilst the SNP are projected to gain just 4 MPs. The clearest story from the polls is that minor parties are continuing to struggle in a politically polarised country, and the Lib Dems in particular are still unable to poll any higher than 10%.

3. The outcome in terms of seats is very uncertain.

One element of the 2017 election that went uncommented upon was that it was really, really close. The gap between the two biggest parties in the national popular vote (42.4% to 40.0%) was the smallest since October 1974, whilst at a constituency level, a total of 96 seats were decided by a margin of less than 5pts - 40 Conservative, 31 Labour, 15 SNP, 4 Lib Dem, 2 Plaid Cymru, 2 Sinn Fein and 1 DUP. This leaves us with a high degree of uncertainty in assessing how many seats each party will win. A small swing to one party or the other could result in big gains, or a strong ground campaign could see parties retain close seats that they might otherwise have lost.

For example, using the standard ‘universal swing’ method (applying the national ‘swing’ to all seats), the September poll average would lead to the following results:

CON 39% (-5%), 305 seats (-12)
LAB 38% (-3%), 265 seats (+3)
LIB 9% (+1%), 18 seats (+6)
UKIP 5% (+3%), 0 seats (n/c)
SNP 3% (n/c), 39 seats (+4)
GRN 3% (+1%), 1 seats (n/c)
OTH 1% (n/c), 22 seats (-1)

On the face of it, first-past-the-post would give the Tories a big bonus, as their 1pt lead in the popular vote would equate to a 40-seat lead (a lead of 6.1pts in terms of seats). But if, instead, Labour beat the Tories by 1pt in the popular vote, the Tories would win 286 seats to Labour’s 285. In other words, a tiny shift in votes would cause a dramatic shift in seats, from a decisive Tory lead to a dead heat.

Thus, given that all polls have a margin of error of up to 4pts – and that a shift of just 1pt can now shift 20 seats – anyone pronouncing with absolute certainty that Labour is dead in the water really doesn’t have much of a basis for that.

So, ultimately, the opinion polls are sending us a clear message: if an election was held tomorrow, it would be wide open, and anybody could win. Both major parties are polling at historically high levels, and are thus virtually tied, whilst the minor parties continue to struggle. In the past 15 months, nothing has broken this deadlock to any significant degree. In all likelihood, until something dramatic happens (such as a snap election, the rejection of May’s Brexit deal or a leadership challenge to either May or Corbyn) this deadlock will continue until the next general election – and then the polls will actually start to mean something.

Until that election comes, these polls are largely a curiosity. Nobody should be panicking about them or obsessing over every little shift and subsample. They are interesting for geeks like me, but the main thing people need to know is this: in 2017, Theresa May began the campaign with a 25pt lead in the polls, and by the time people actually voted, she only won by 2pts. If that doesn’t show you how you should never shape your politics around what the polls say, I don’t know what would.

What do the proposed Labour leadership election rules mean?

Update on 10.56pm, 22nd September: Labour's NEC have agreed new leadership rules, but they differ from the below in a vital way. Rather than requiring 10% of MPs/MEPs AND 5% of CLPs AND Unions representing 5% of affiliate members, the NEC's proposal would require:

• 10% of the PLP

Plus EITHER:

• 5% of CLPs

• 5% of affiliated organisations, at least 2 of which must be Trade Unions who represent at least 5% of the affiliated membership (currently estimated at 3.9m).

The important word here is "either". The upshot is that the trade unions would not have the ability to solely veto a candidate; candidates can be nominated if they gather the backing of 25 MPs, plus either 30 CLPs or one big trade union.

These rules would have allowed Andy Burnham to remain on the ballot in 2010, with Ed Balls and Diane Abbott still excluded. Yvette Cooper would have made the ballot in 2015, as she recieved 25% of PLP nominations plus 17% of CLPs. Liz Kendall, however, would have been excluded.

-----

Within the last few days, more details have emerged about Labour’s soon-to-be-finalised Democracy Review. It is looking very likely that one of the proposals presented to Labour Conference by the National Executive (NEC) will be a change to the rules for electing the Labour Party Leader. Specifically, the changes being proposed would affect how candidates are nominated (the voting system would apparently remain unchanged). 

The current system 

Under the current rules, in the event of a vacancy, Labour MPs can stand to be Leader of the Labour Party if they gather written nominations from 10% of MPs/MEPs. As Labour currently has 257 MPs and 20 MEPs, a candidate would need to gather nominations from 28 MPs/MEPs. This number has shifted over the years (12% in 2010, 15% in 2015, reduced to 10% in 2017) but the key point is that the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) has retained the absolute sole right to nominate candidates for Leader, with other sections of the party only permitted to offer “supporting” (i.e., non-binding) nominations.  

The proposed system 

The nomination system that will be debated by the NEC on Saturday would retain the requirement for candidates to be nominated by at least 10% of the PLP. However, it also adds two new requirements in addition to this PLP threshold. To be on the ballot, candidates would have to receive nominations from at least:

• 10% of MPs/MEPs
• 5% of Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs)
• 5% of affiliated organisations, at least 2 of which must be Trade Unions who represent at least 5% of the affiliated membership (currently estimated at 3.9m).

There are only 4 out of 14 affiliated Unions who represent at least 5% of this 3.9m total: UNISON (34.6%), Unite (31.9%), GMB (15.7%) and USDAW (10.9%). Together these four Unions represent 93% of Labour’s affiliated Union members. Thus, in practice, leadership candidates would need the support of at least one of the big four (plus any other union, large or small) in order to be on the ballot. 

The consequences 

The possible effects of this proposed system have been raised most strongly by the Labour left, who believe that it effectively rules out the possibility of there being a successor to Corbyn who shares his political outlook. It is worth taking a look at the effect on previous elections.

Table showing nominations by affiliates, CLPs and the PLP/EPLP in 2010, 2015 and 2016. 'Union %' indicates the percentage of affiliated members represented by the unions who nominated that candidate.

As the table above shows, the proposed rules would impose a much more prohibitive threshold upon candidates. Neither Ed Balls, Andy Burnham nor Diane Abbott would have made the ballot in 2010, all falling at different hurdles. Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall would both have been blocked from the ballot in 2015, with Cooper failing to pass the Union threshold, as she gathered support from Unions representing a mere 1.3% of affiliated members. Even David Miliband’s position in 2010 would have been precarious; he was only nominated by two trade unions, and if he had failed to gather that second union nomination, then under the proposed rules Ed Miliband would have been elected unopposed!

Conclusion

Some critics have depicted the changes as giving the PLP a veto over candidates, but this is a mischaracterisation. In fact, the biggest beneficiaries by far would be the big trade unions. The proposed changes would give the five biggest trade unions – UNISON, Unite, GMB, USDAW and CWU – an effective veto on who is allowed onto the ballot for Labour leadership elections, as together they represent 97% of affiliated members.

The question is – what does this mean for Corbynism? After all, Corbyn himself easily passed the threshold in 2015 and 2016, winning nominations from Unions representing over 70% of affiliated members; given this, the objections from the Labour left might seem confusing to the casual observer. But they are right to be concerned.

It is historically very unusual for the affiliated unions, especially the large unions, to back the Labour left’s candidate in a Labour leadership election. In 2010, Diane Abbott received nominations from unions representing just 1% of affiliated members. But in 2015, all candidates except Corbyn had made clear they did not want any support from trade unions, nor did they agree with the unions’ policy priorities. Corbyn, on the other hand, welcomed the unions’ support and his domestic and economic policy priorities dovetailed perfectly with the unions’. When combined with grassroots pressure on union leaderships from pro-Corbyn union members, this led to the unusual spectacle of the biggest unions almost all lining up behind the Labour left’s candidate. 

But with Labour’s shift to the left, and with ‘soft left’ MPs realising that their politics might actually win over the membership, we are unlikely to see a situation in which a sole Left candidate faces off against multiple centrists. More likely is a scenario in which a Left candidate, a soft left candidate and two or three centrists attempt to gather nominations. And given how high the threshold would be under these proposed rules, I think Momentum is more than justified in worrying that a candidate from the Labour left would be in real danger of not reaching the union threshold, as the big unions could (as they did in 2010) line up behind the ‘soft left’ candidate. 

So for now, the future of the Labour left rests in the hands of the NEC and Labour Party Conference.

The Green Party needs to ask itself why it exists

This week, the Green Party of England and Wales concluded its 6th leadership contest, with Lambeth councillor Jonathan Bartley and London Assembly member Sian Berry elected as co-leaders. The pair declared during their campaign that the 2018 local elections were the party’s “best set of council results ever” and that Bartley’s co-leadership with Caroline Lucas MP had “succeeded better than we could have imagined”. In this article, I'll review how accurate that statement is.

Much of the debate during the leadership campaign appears to have focused on the competence of potential leaders, with only pro-Brexit candidate Leslie Rowe (who won 5.9% of the vote, making Brexit more popular in the Greens than Blairism in Labour) departing from the mainstream Green policy agenda. Stopping Brexit and climate change appear to be the big priorities for the Green Party leadership forward.

And yet this new leadership team seems to have missed the reality of the Greens’ electoral position. In the past 3 years, the Green Party’s support – which seemed, in 2015, to be set to jump forwards – has in fact gone backwards. In this article I’ll review the Greens’ recent electoral performance and consider what might be causing the party’s recent troubles.

Its net gain of 8 council seats in the 2018 local elections, trumpeted as its “best ever”, was an improvement on 2017 (+1) and 2016 (-3). But it was poor in comparison with 2014 (+18) or 2006 (+20). Neither its percentage of seats won (0.9%) nor its seat gain (+8) were its “best ever”, both being surpassed in previous years - the party gained 20 seats in 2006, and won 1.6% of the seats in 2016. The 2018 election did result in the most Green councillors ever - but given that the party starts from a very low base, every election in which the party gains seats results in the most Green seats ever. When you only have 180 councillors out of 18,829, the only way is up.

Table showing Green results in local elections.

The Greens may have more councillors than they did in May 2015 – but only 6 more. For context, in 2012-15, the party made a net gain of 38 seats. Devolved contests in London (-0.6%) and Wales (-0.4%) saw similarly derisory performances, with the London result being its worst ever. 

Meanwhile, in opinion polls, the Greens have managed to claw their way back to a total of 3%, up from the 2% they polled in the 2017 general election (in which they lost 500,000 votes, dropping from 3.6% to 1.7%). 

10-point moving average of Green Party support in polls since May 2015.

And even that large drop in vote share (losing 47% of their votes) masked a bigger collapse in individual target seats. The 2017 election in Norwich South saw the Green vote share drop by 11 percentage points (a decline of 79%), whilst the top Green target after Brighton Pavillion, Bristol West, saw the party drop by 14 points (a decline of 52%). 

I’ve put a table below to illustrate the worst results. Overall, in 285 of the 441 seats they stood in (65%), the Green Party lost a greater proportion of votes than it did nationally.

All seats where more than 75% of Green voters deserted the party in 2017.

Whilst some Greens would point to the fact that their 2017 national vote share (1.6%) and total vote (512,327) was still higher than at any point prior to 2015, this is largely down to a substantial increase in the number of candidates. 

In 2005, the Greens stood candidates in just 182 of the 533 English & Welsh seats, and recieved 257,758 votes (1.0%). However, their average vote per candidate was 3.2%. In 2017, the Greens stood 461 candidates and recieved 512,327 votes (1.6%) - but their average vote per candidate was lower at 2.1%. 

The big question, of course, is: why has all this happened? In May 2015 this collapse seemed implausible. The Greens were in their strongest position ever, with 63,000 members, 1.1m votes, a seat in Parliament, a close second place in Bristol West (just 5,600 votes behind Labour), 123 saved deposits and a growing niche in British politics as the left-wing alternative to Labour. All but one of these strengths have now been whittled away. The party has lost 24,000 members, lost 500,000 votes, is now 38,000 votes behind Labour in Bristol West, only saved 8 deposits in 2017 and is no longer criticising Labour from the left but has instead pivoted to attacking Labour from the liberal centre over the EU. They retain their sole MP in Brighton Pavillion, but Caroline Lucas is just 1 person who at some point will want to retire. How did the Greens get here?

As most readers would no doubt conclude, the answer is Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn became Labour Party leader in 2015, winning on a left-wing, socialist program that appealed to the vast majority of those inclined to vote Green. In the months and years following his victory, the steady trickle of Green members leaving for Labour began to turn into a flood. Green seats up and down the country fell to Labour candidates; in Norwich, once the home of the most successful Green Party in Britain, the party has lost 10 councillors in 3 years, all to Labour. The Green Party has become consumed by the question of how to respond to the reform of a Labour Party most had dismissed as unreformable. A minority of members quit the Greens to join Labour and support the Corbyn leadership, but a majority of members have remained, and have been supplemented by new pro-EU members joining after Brexit.

Total Green Party seats in Norwich 2014-18

The consequence has been a shift to the centre by the Greens, with the European Union becoming the major point of difference between the Greens and the Labour Party – a profound irony considering that the Greens were a soft Eurosceptic party right up until 2016. The party stated as recently as 2013 that the EU has “a huge democratic deficit in its functioning, a serious bias towards the interests of neoliberalism and 'the market'”, and engages in “imposition of dictats from above, such as the austerity that has been forced on the people of many states in south Europe”. Backing an EU referendum in January 2013, on the same day as David Cameron, then-Leader Natalie Bennett declared that the Green Party “believes in democracy and self-determination”, adding, “On important issues like this, voters should be given the opportunity to express a clear view”. 

The party may have come down on the pro-EU side on balance, but prior to 2016 it was no cheerleader for the single market or the EU overall – and there was absolutely no suggestion that it would force voters to vote again if they delivered a response the Green Party didn’t like. Yet despite bemoaning the “endless debate” over EU membership in their 2015 manifesto, they now demand even more debate through a 2^nd referendum.

All of which poses the question – what is the Green Party for? In the past, its objective seemed to be to fight austerity (which the Labour leadership in 2010-15 were not doing) but its response to the election of a left-wing, anti-austerity Labour leader was to strongly oppose him and stand against Labour candidates, making a Tory government more likely. I would suggest, then, that specific policies (such as austerity) are not existential questions for the party, in the way that they were, say, for Left Unity, who dissolved after Corbyn’s election. If the Green Party continues to exist when faced with a major party that has adopted all of its main priorities, then it has to give an ideological justification for that; instead, it has simply embraced the EU, a temporary point of difference that will be irrelevant after March 2019.

Unless the party embraces its original niche of being a purely ecological party (which it will not do, as that would leave it floundering on 1% of the vote), then it will be forced to confront the fact that for as long as the left controls the Labour Party,  the Green Party doesn’t have a purpose. For those who say, in response, that the Greens champion left politics, environmentalism, civil liberties and migrants’ rights, I would say: consider the following points. Labour’s left has moved UK politics further to the left in 3 years than the Greens have in 40 years; Corbyn and McDonnell are two of the most environmentally-conscious MPs in the whole of Parliament; the most pro-migrant and pro-civil liberties MP in the Commons, Diane Abbott, would be Home Secretary under a Corbyn government; and the democratisation of the Labour Party will open up the PLP, and thus the Cabinet, to a wide range of socialists, social liberals and environmentalists from across the British left. Isn’t that far more exciting and important than working to get a handful of Greens onto a district council?

Corbyn’s leadership is a genuine moment of possibility that comes along once in a lifetime. Changing Britain for good is genuinely within our grasp, and that requires all of us on the left to get stuck in and help. This is not a time for the left to fight each other or to split the left vote. And that means there is a serious debate to be had within the Greens about their response to Corbynism and their very purpose as a party.

However, this debate seems to have been ignored in favour of inaccurate assessments of the party’s performance, an uncritical embrace of the EU single market and a return to focusing on the environment. But for as long as the party avoids these tough questions, it will continue to leak support to a Corbyn-led Labour Party – and its leaders may wake up one day to find that their party is (to quote another person who never exercised political power) “irrelevant to the real needs”.

Only time will tell.