This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/05/mercenary-voters-decided-uk-election-says-pollster-who-predicted-tory-victory

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
'Mercenary voters' decided UK election, says pollster who predicted Tory victory 'Mercenary voters' decided UK election, says pollster who predicted Tory victory
(35 minutes later)
The rise of the mercenary voter – prepared to put self interest ahead of traditional allegiances, to “game” opinion polls and to vote tactically - is central to pollster Mark Textor’s analysis of the UK election result and other pollster’s failure to predict it. The rise of the mercenary voter – prepared to put self-interest ahead of traditional allegiances, to “game” opinion polls and to vote tactically is central to pollster Mark Textor’s analysis of the UK election result and the failure of others in his field to predict it.
The veteran Australian pollster says the reasons his internal polling predicted David Cameron’s victory when published polls had the result on a knife-edge also helped the success of business partner Lynton Crosby’s campaign strategy an understanding of the modern voter. The veteran Australian pollster says the same knowledge that enabled his internal polling to predict David Cameron’s victory when published polls had the result on a knife-edge also helped the success of his business partner Lynton Crosby’s Tory campaign strategy: an understanding of the modern voter.
“As people like you [political journalists] make voters more aware of the political process, they are adjusting to that knowledge by being more mercenary themselves and tactical in their own voting behaviour ... they know they can’t change the whole political system, but they understand the power of their vote,” Textor says.“As people like you [political journalists] make voters more aware of the political process, they are adjusting to that knowledge by being more mercenary themselves and tactical in their own voting behaviour ... they know they can’t change the whole political system, but they understand the power of their vote,” Textor says.
“The big lesson from the UK poll was the rise of tactical voting, voters making choices not just on policy or personality ... but on understanding and gaming what might happen with a certain poll outcome,” he says. “The big lesson from the UK poll was the rise of tactical voting voters making choices not just on policy or personality ... but on understanding and gaming what might happen with a certain poll outcome,” he adds.
In the leadup to the May poll British voters were bombarded with advice about how to use their vote to block the party they least wanted to win, but Textor – who worked with Jim Messina, the former senior adviser to Barack Obama – says the winning strategy worked with that trend to persuade voters to set aside their usual allegiances by persuading them of the immediate self interest of voting Conservative – with the Conservatives’ “stable majority government” argument and the warnings about the “threat” of a Labour government dominated by the SNP. In the leadup to the election in May British voters were bombarded with advice about how to use their vote to block the party they least wanted to win, but Textor – who worked with Jim Messina, the former senior adviser to Barack Obama – says the winning strategy worked with that trend to persuade voters to set aside their usual allegiances by persuading them of the immediate self interest of voting Conservative – with the Conservatives’ “stable majority government” argument and the warnings about the “threat” of a Labour government dominated by the SNP.
He claims the public polls made three big mistakes; they didn’t ask enough questions to measure tactical voters – people who were persuaded to “game” the election result or the result of the opinion poll itself, they didn’t do enough to measure voters’ expectations and hopes about the outcome – which may have shed light on tactical intentions – and they didn’t measure the “local candidate” factor in close constituencies with intense local campaigns.He claims the public polls made three big mistakes; they didn’t ask enough questions to measure tactical voters – people who were persuaded to “game” the election result or the result of the opinion poll itself, they didn’t do enough to measure voters’ expectations and hopes about the outcome – which may have shed light on tactical intentions – and they didn’t measure the “local candidate” factor in close constituencies with intense local campaigns.
All of that, he says, is “far more fundamental than not stuffing up your sample, because you can have a perfect sample ... and still cock it up”.All of that, he says, is “far more fundamental than not stuffing up your sample, because you can have a perfect sample ... and still cock it up”.
“We were polling massive numbers of voters every night and assessing how they looked at their choices, so we knew that in normal public-style polls they were saying they preferred Labour ... but at the end of the day the actual outcome they wanted was a David Cameron-led Conservative government, and the only way to do that was to vote Conservative in their local seat.“We were polling massive numbers of voters every night and assessing how they looked at their choices, so we knew that in normal public-style polls they were saying they preferred Labour ... but at the end of the day the actual outcome they wanted was a David Cameron-led Conservative government, and the only way to do that was to vote Conservative in their local seat.
“We measured their preferred style of government ... they might say: ‘Normally I prefer Labour’, but we asked: ‘Which scenario do you want as an outcome?’...so we knew there were a lot of voters who on traditional voting patterns were Labour voters but had made the tactical decision that the best choice was to vote for David Cameron ... we were measuring outcomes and not just voting preference.”“We measured their preferred style of government ... they might say: ‘Normally I prefer Labour’, but we asked: ‘Which scenario do you want as an outcome?’...so we knew there were a lot of voters who on traditional voting patterns were Labour voters but had made the tactical decision that the best choice was to vote for David Cameron ... we were measuring outcomes and not just voting preference.”
And according to Textor, some voters may have also “gamed” the published polls.And according to Textor, some voters may have also “gamed” the published polls.
“They were using polling like a protest vote, they might think: “I don’t really want Miliband, but I’ll say I prefer him to tickle up the Conservatives or whomever, but we knew at the end of the day when we measured their preferred model in government what they really wanted was the outcome of a stable Cameron-led government.”“They were using polling like a protest vote, they might think: “I don’t really want Miliband, but I’ll say I prefer him to tickle up the Conservatives or whomever, but we knew at the end of the day when we measured their preferred model in government what they really wanted was the outcome of a stable Cameron-led government.”
“Another reason was none of the published polls in marginal seats used the names of the local member, and when the ground warfare is so strong because there is no television advertising, you spend much more time and effort and money in your own defence seats.“Another reason was none of the published polls in marginal seats used the names of the local member, and when the ground warfare is so strong because there is no television advertising, you spend much more time and effort and money in your own defence seats.
“Published polls kept showing we were losing seats that our polling showed we weren’t, because when you don’t measure the incumbency factor through a local candidate name in seats where you are spending enormous time and effort and money upping the name identification of a local member then that’s a big mistake.”“Published polls kept showing we were losing seats that our polling showed we weren’t, because when you don’t measure the incumbency factor through a local candidate name in seats where you are spending enormous time and effort and money upping the name identification of a local member then that’s a big mistake.”
But an often-cited explanation for polling inaccuracies, the “shy Tory” voter – who doesn’t want to tell pollsters they vote Conservative – is according to Textor, complete nonsense.But an often-cited explanation for polling inaccuracies, the “shy Tory” voter – who doesn’t want to tell pollsters they vote Conservative – is according to Textor, complete nonsense.
“’Shy Tory’ is a convenient comfort blanket for people who don’t understand polling; I have no idea what that means, they were telling us the truth on the phones, I mean they weren’t shy to us. It’s a way some of them explain away or try to distract from much more fundamental errors of process.”“’Shy Tory’ is a convenient comfort blanket for people who don’t understand polling; I have no idea what that means, they were telling us the truth on the phones, I mean they weren’t shy to us. It’s a way some of them explain away or try to distract from much more fundamental errors of process.”
The explanations, of course, fit with the Crosby Textor-designed Conservative messaging, which Textor says was crafted around voter willingness to act tactically.The explanations, of course, fit with the Crosby Textor-designed Conservative messaging, which Textor says was crafted around voter willingness to act tactically.
“In Liberal Democrat seats, Lynton and the campaign team made the decision to actually talk to Liberal Democrat voters and say to them, through billboards and other technologies, you live in one of the 23 seats that must be won by the Conservatives in order to deliver majority government ... you might be a Lib Dem voter and you might like a coalition, but the only sure way to stop an SNP dominated Labour/SNP coalition is to effectively loan your vote to a Conservative.“In Liberal Democrat seats, Lynton and the campaign team made the decision to actually talk to Liberal Democrat voters and say to them, through billboards and other technologies, you live in one of the 23 seats that must be won by the Conservatives in order to deliver majority government ... you might be a Lib Dem voter and you might like a coalition, but the only sure way to stop an SNP dominated Labour/SNP coalition is to effectively loan your vote to a Conservative.
“It’s really not about which candidate or party you like, but effectively a very expeditious and sometimes mercenary vote in order to provide stability to parliament ... to vote for a prime minister and an outcome which you prefer tactically; there was an enormous amount of tactical voting and the reason a lot of polls got it wrong is that they didn’t measure that tactical vote.”“It’s really not about which candidate or party you like, but effectively a very expeditious and sometimes mercenary vote in order to provide stability to parliament ... to vote for a prime minister and an outcome which you prefer tactically; there was an enormous amount of tactical voting and the reason a lot of polls got it wrong is that they didn’t measure that tactical vote.”
And while Cameron focused on his own economic record and the alleged threat Labour posed to the economy, Textor says voters weren’t promised “economic security”, but rather “economic empowerment”.And while Cameron focused on his own economic record and the alleged threat Labour posed to the economy, Textor says voters weren’t promised “economic security”, but rather “economic empowerment”.
“Voters are not so naive to think anyone can make them more secure, be it a union, a government or a business; they look to see whether this new idea or initiative allows them more power over their own circumstance.”“Voters are not so naive to think anyone can make them more secure, be it a union, a government or a business; they look to see whether this new idea or initiative allows them more power over their own circumstance.”