Labour on course to win election (according to Twitter)

Study attempts to use Twitter to predict the election result.

The latest polls may show the Tories' lead over Labour increasing, but there's better news for Gordon Brown in a new report by Tweetminster. The study, which attempts to predict the result of the election by tracking the most mentioned candidates and constituencies on Twitter, suggests that Labour is on course to win by a majority of 14 seats.

You may dismiss the study as hopelessly unreliable (an earlier report found that Twitter users were disproportionately liberal) but that's not really the point.

Tweetminster isn't attempting to put YouGov et al out of a job. Rather, it is investigating what correlation (if any) exists between word-of-mouth on Twitter and the election result. Whatever the relationship between the two, we will learn more about the influence of new media on the world of politics.

A similar study in Japan during last year's general election found that in about 90 per cent of constituencies the most mentioned candidate on Twitter won the seat. But that's still a 10 per cent margin of error, large enough to make the difference between a hung parliament and a healthy Tory majority.

Tweetminster's analysis of 376 British seats, based on two million tweets, suggests the following result:

Labour: 35%
Conservatives: 34%
Liberal Democrats: 22%
Others: 9%

The study also found that support for the Scottish National Party is declining. and that the Greens are performing particularly well in Brighton (where their leader, Caroline Lucas, is likely to win) and Norwich South (where the deputy leader, Adrian Ramsay, is expected to run Charles Clarke close).

It also suggests that the Lib Dems are generating more support in the key south-west marginals that David Cameron needs to win to secure an overall majority.

With so much talk about this being the first "internet election", I think it'll be worth watching to see how close Tweetminster gets to the real result.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

What type of Brexit did we vote for? 150,000 Conservative members will decide

As Michael Gove launches his leadership bid, what Leave looks like will be decided by Conservative activists.

Why did 17 million people vote to the leave the European Union, and what did they want? That’s the question that will shape the direction of British politics and economics for the next half-century, perhaps longer.

Vote Leave triumphed in part because they fought a campaign that combined ruthless precision about what the European Union would do – the illusory £350m a week that could be clawed back with a Brexit vote, the imagined 75 million Turks who would rock up to Britain in the days after a Remain vote – with calculated ambiguity about what exit would look like.

Now that ambiguity will be clarified – by just 150,000 people.

 That’s part of why the initial Brexit losses on the stock market have been clawed back – there is still some expectation that we may end up with a more diluted version of a Leave vote than the version offered by Vote Leave. Within the Treasury, the expectation is that the initial “Brexit shock” has been pushed back until the last quarter of the year, when the election of a new Conservative leader will give markets an idea of what to expect.  

Michael Gove, who kicked off his surprise bid today, is running as the “full-fat” version offered by Vote Leave: exit from not just the European Union but from the single market, a cash bounty for Britain’s public services, more investment in science and education. Make Britain great again!

Although my reading of the Conservative parliamentary party is that Gove’s chances of getting to the top two are receding, with Andrea Leadsom the likely beneficiary. She, too, will offer something close to the unadulterated version of exit that Gove is running on. That is the version that is making officials in Whitehall and the Bank of England most nervous, as they expect it means exit on World Trade Organisation terms, followed by lengthy and severe recession.

Elsewhere, both Stephen Crabb and Theresa May, who supported a Remain vote, have kicked off their campaigns with a promise that “Brexit means Brexit” in the words of May, while Crabb has conceded that, in his view, the Leave vote means that Britain will have to take more control of its borders as part of any exit deal. May has made retaining Britain’s single market access a priority, Crabb has not.

On the Labour side, John McDonnell has set out his red lines in a Brexit negotiation, and again remaining in the single market is a red line, alongside access to the European Investment Bank, and the maintenance of “social Europe”. But he, too, has stated that Brexit means the “end of free movement”.

My reading – and indeed the reading within McDonnell’s circle – is that it is the loyalists who are likely to emerge victorious in Labour’s power struggle, although it could yet be under a different leader. (Serious figures in that camp are thinking about whether Clive Lewis might be the solution to the party’s woes.) Even if they don’t, the rebels’ alternate is likely either to be drawn from the party’s Brownite tendency or to have that faction acting as its guarantors, making an end to free movement a near-certainty on the Labour side.

Why does that matter? Well, the emerging consensus on Whitehall is that, provided you were willing to sacrifice the bulk of Britain’s financial services to Frankfurt and Paris, there is a deal to be struck in which Britain remains subject to only three of the four freedoms – free movement of goods, services, capital and people – but retains access to the single market. 

That means that what Brexit actually looks like remains a matter of conjecture, a subject of considerable consternation for British officials. For staff at the Bank of England,  who have to make a judgement call in their August inflation report as to what the impact of an out vote will be. The Office of Budget Responsibility expects that it will be heavily led by the Bank. Britain's short-term economic future will be driven not by elected politicians but by polls of the Conservative membership. A tense few months await. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.