Editorial: Britain's voters defy predictions

British Prime Minister Theresa May's gamble in calling an early election appears to have backfired spectacularly. Photo / AP

Voters in Britain have proved again that voters everywhere cannot be taken for granted.

The election that was expected to be a cakewalk for the Conservative Party turned out to be anything but one.

Prime Minister Theresa May was encouraged to seek a new mandate by polls that, in hindsight, ought to have been treated with caution. The Brexit and American presidential elections last year were prime examples of voters defying the predictions of those who claim expertise in politics.

It is a lesson that needs to be taken to heart in this country where the latest 1 News Colmar Brunton poll gave National more support than Labour, the Greens and NZ First combined. Britain's Tories went into their election with a comfortable majority too.

When a voter answers a question from a pollster, usually on a telephone, it is quite different from casting a vote. A poll is not secret, the preference has to be declared out loud.

And it is just a poll, it is not a decisive moment for the voter. A certain number of respondents may tell the pollsters what they think they should do rather than what they find themselves really doing when faced with the ballot paper.

Some may name the party they think will win rather than the party they want. Many will simply change their minds once the campaign is under way.

A campaign is a great leveller. Governments no longer enjoy the lion's share of attention they receive simply by being in the position to make important decisions. Opposition parties are given equal attention and people make their own judgments of leaders they have previously only glimpsed in sound bites.

The leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has survived this attention unexpectedly well, putting paid to the conventional wisdom that Labour under him was "unelectable".

He turned the election in a rejection of "austerity" and a vote for more spending on health, education and public services. He was helped by the Prime Minister's proposals to charge the elderly more for subsidised care. He was probably also helped by May's failure to face him in televised debate.

Perhaps her tacticians told her she was so far ahead that she had nothing to gain and everything to risk against Corbyn and other opposing party leaders.

Whatever their reason, ducking the debates was a mistake. It could be seen either as snubbing her opponents or fearing them. Either way it looked bad.

May called the election on a pretext of Brexit. She wanted to strengthen her hand in negotiations with the European Union on the terms of Britain's exit. Her real reason was to seek electoral endorsement of her elevation to Prime Minister after the resignation of David Cameron. She must be disappointed on both counts.

Brexit scarcely featured in election issues. Only the Liberal Democrats and Scots Nationalists stood to remain in the EU and both lost ground.

Britain's voters went into this election jaded by the succession of elections and referendums put to them in recent years.

But in refusing May the decisive majority she expected, they have probably ensured they will be voting again sooner rather than later.

Next time the election will be called from necessity, not opportunism, and the result will not be taken for granted. The voters have made it clear they expect nothing less.