politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The piece in the GE2015 jigsaw that even Lynton Crosby is u

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The piece in the GE2015 jigsaw that even Lynton Crosby is unable to fix: LAB gets more seats than CON for the same vote share

The calculation on the number of seats is made by applying the changes on a uniform national swing basis on the GE2010 result to each of the GB seats.

Read the full story here

tpfkar

The Tories seem to have Stockholm Syndrome with First Past the Post.

TheScreamingEagles

Yup

Pulpstar

@TSE cleans up with Paddy Power too if this happens.

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

@TSE cleans up with Paddy Power too if this happens.

Indeed - Go to a few Paddy Power shops and fill yer boots

Labour to poll fewer votes and win more seats than Conservatives 4/1

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1313367

AndyJS

I think the effect will be less than expected in 2015 because Labour will do better than average in the seats they already hold, (I know Ashcroft's poll shows the opposite).

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

@TSE cleans up with Paddy Power too if this happens.

Indeed - Go to a Paddy Power shop and fill yer boots

Labour to poll fewer votes and win more seats than Conservatives 4/1

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1313367

It's in my portfolio already, don't worry.

Unbelievably it was 8-1 at one stage.

TheScreamingEagles

Paddy Power shop locator

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/shop-locator

MaxPB

Killing AV was stupid.

If the Tories manage to scrape 320 or more seats the first piece of legislation they must enact is boundary equalisation based in 650 seats so Labour doesn't have the same advantage heading into2019/20.

Alanbrooke

Some of the biggest drops in unemployment were in the East and West Midlands, it will take time but that will start to feed through.

TheScreamingEagles

Just backed Sunderland to win tonight 10/1 and Fabio Borini scoring at anytime at 5/1

http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/league-cup/man-utd-v-sunderland/anytime-goalscorer

Sean_F

tpfkar said:

The Tories seem to have Stockholm Syndrome with First Past the Post.

FPTP works very well for the Conservatives. It gave the Party 47% of the seats on 36% of the vote last time, and locks out other parties on the Right, with whom they'd have to share power, under PR.

It's just that the system works even better for Labour.

MrJones

Another way of looking at that is Labour can win seats with a very low percentage of the vote because none of the alternatives appeal.

Also, Hancock is more interesting

Also, even more interesting is if the increase in employment is people coming out of the shadow economy and if so what difference that makes to political expectations.

Sean_F

Back in 2001, Labour would have won 140 more seats than the Conservatives, had their vote shares been equal. That advantage has fallen away very rapidly, in subsequent elections. IMO, that advantage will fall further in 2015, as the impact of double incumbency kicks in.

TheScreamingEagles

YouTube mashup shows Ed Balls' head bobs like the dog from the Churchill advert

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/youtube-mashup-shows-ed-balls-head-bobs-like-the-dog-from-the-churchill-advert-9077549.html

MrJones

Alanbrooke said:

Some of the biggest drops in unemployment were in the East and West Midlands, it will take time but that will start to feed through.

Depends. If it's employed shop workers in the cash economy coming off unemployment benefit and starting to claim working tax credits instead.

MikeSmithson

Sean_F said:

Back in 2001, Labour would have won 140 more seats than the Conservatives, had their vote shares been equal. That advantage has fallen away very rapidly, in subsequent elections. IMO, that advantage will fall further in 2015, as the impact of double incumbency kicks in.

But those subsequent elections were when LAB was on the decline. Now they are moving back up with more support from 2010 LDs where it matters.

taffys

Mike is obviously correct, but there's one ray of hope.

Labour have moved to the left. They will not be targeting the marginals with the same 'don't frighten the middlebrow horses' policies that they have been since 1997.

And their leader is not a 'don't frighten the middlebrow horses' leader, either.

edmundintokyo

MaxPB said:

If the Tories manage to scrape 320 or more seats the first piece of legislation they must enact is boundary equalisation based in 650 seats so Labour doesn't have the same advantage heading into2019/20.

Presumably the 12 seats Mike mentions are before you take into account the loss of incumbency the Tories would suffer from shuffling everybody's seats around to meet the variation quota.

In any case if the arithmetic was that tight I doubt they could count on their whole party voting for it.

RichardNabavi

The LibDems seem to making heroic efforts to discourage tactical voting by Labour supporters.

AndyJS

Oddschecker — Wythenshawe by-election:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/wythenshawe-and-sale-east-by-election/winning-party

Alanbrooke

MrJones said:

Alanbrooke said:

Some of the biggest drops in unemployment were in the East and West Midlands, it will take time but that will start to feed through.

Depends. If it's employed shop workers in the cash economy coming off unemployment benefit and starting to claim working tax credits instead.

Doesn't really matter imo, it's a drop and all adds to the feeling things are recovering. The working family across the road sees a moonlighter being forced into the real economy.

MrJones

Sean_F said:

Back in 2001, Labour would have won 140 more seats than the Conservatives, had their vote shares been equal. That advantage has fallen away very rapidly, in subsequent elections. IMO, that advantage will fall further in 2015, as the impact of double incumbency kicks in.

I don't know the numbers so maybe i'm wrong but isn't that just saying the vote in leafy areas is split between Con and Lib while the vote in the non-leafy areas is split between Lab and don't vote?

MrJones

Alanbrooke said:

MrJones said:

Alanbrooke said:

Some of the biggest drops in unemployment were in the East and West Midlands, it will take time but that will start to feed through.

Depends. If it's employed shop workers in the cash economy coming off unemployment benefit and starting to claim working tax credits instead.

Doesn't really matter imo, it's a drop and all adds to the feeling things are recovering. The working family across the road sees a moonlighter being forced into the real economy.

I'm not knocking it and I agree there'll be multiple conflicting effects but if they were already working - but in very low-productivity areas like taxi driving and shop work - the net effect might not be what people think it will be.

Pulpstar

Sean_F said:

tpfkar said:

The Tories seem to have Stockholm Syndrome with First Past the Post.

FPTP works very well for the Conservatives. It gave the Party 47% of the seats on 36% of the vote last time, and locks out other parties on the Right, with whom they'd have to share power, under PR.

It's just that the system works even better for Labour.

Spot on. It's not bias against the Conservatives, it is bias towards Labour. That's a subtle but crucial difference.

Sean_F

MikeSmithson said:

Sean_F said:

Back in 2001, Labour would have won 140 more seats than the Conservatives, had their vote shares been equal. That advantage has fallen away very rapidly, in subsequent elections. IMO, that advantage will fall further in 2015, as the impact of double incumbency kicks in.

But those subsequent elections were when LAB was on the decline. Now they are moving back up with more support from 2010 LDs where it matters.

That will assist Labour, but incumbency (and the Communications Allowance) will work against them.

TGOHF

tpfkar said:

The Tories seem to have Stockholm Syndrome with First Past the Post.

Well 2015 is set in stone. Too late to change the rules now - Lynton et al just have to get the finger out. The good news is the economy and the crappness of Ed.

AndyJS

Anyone know why Betfair don't have a market yet for Wythenshawe?

Sean_F

MrJones said:

Sean_F said:

Back in 2001, Labour would have won 140 more seats than the Conservatives, had their vote shares been equal. That advantage has fallen away very rapidly, in subsequent elections. IMO, that advantage will fall further in 2015, as the impact of double incumbency kicks in.

I don't know the numbers so maybe i'm wrong but isn't that just saying the vote in leafy areas is split between Con and Lib while the vote in the non-leafy areas is split between Lab and don't vote?

Back in 2001, droves of voters were voting Labour, Lib Dem, or Nationalist, just to keep the Conservative out.

AveryLP

FPT

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I wonder if the messages from the tightening up of benefits and changes in the housing benefit etc are also playing a part in reducing these unemployment rates? Does anyone have any stats in this area to prove/disprove?

No statistics, but your view is certainly co-incident with that of the BoE's MPC Members:

Weak pay growth also pointed to the continued existence of slack in the labour market. The unemployment rate remained higher than most estimates of its medium-term equilibrium value. And, while there was considerable uncertainty around such estimates, shifts in the composition of unemployment had suggested that equilibrium unemployment might be lower than previously thought. In particular, most of the fall in unemployment in the three months to October had come from falls in medium and long-term unemployment. Higher transition rates out of longer-term unemployment had suggested that those affected might have retained a greater attachment to the labour market than had been feared. A tightening in the eligibility requirements for some state benefits might also have led to an intensification of job search. Taken together, this suggested that there could be more downward pressure on pay growth for any given rate of unemployment. The high proportion of part-time workers who said they would prefer a full-time job also provided evidence of continuing slack in the labour market. Against that, contacts of the Bank’s Agents and employer surveys had reported an increase in skill shortages and recruitment difficulties in a number of sectors of the economy.

Sean_F

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

tpfkar said:

The Tories seem to have Stockholm Syndrome with First Past the Post.

FPTP works very well for the Conservatives. It gave the Party 47% of the seats on 36% of the vote last time, and locks out other parties on the Right, with whom they'd have to share power, under PR.

It's just that the system works even better for Labour.

Spot on. It's not bias against the Conservatives, it is bias towards Labour. That's a subtle but crucial difference.

Even on the Electoral Calculus figures, 35% (which is 34% nationally) gives the Conservatives 43% of the seats.

AndyJS

In 2005 Labour won 55% of seats with 35% of votes. In 2001 they won 63% of seats with 41% of votes.

AveryLP

On topic

What do the Tories do?

The answer is simple.

Win the debate on the economy by so great a margin that the structural bias to Labour in the electoral system becomes irrelevant to the election outcome.

Put another way, at the rate unemployment is currently falling, will there be sufficient benefit scroungers left to vote for Labour in May 2015?

edmundintokyo

Sean_F said:

MikeSmithson said:

Sean_F said:

Back in 2001, Labour would have won 140 more seats than the Conservatives, had their vote shares been equal. That advantage has fallen away very rapidly, in subsequent elections. IMO, that advantage will fall further in 2015, as the impact of double incumbency kicks in.

But those subsequent elections were when LAB was on the decline. Now they are moving back up with more support from 2010 LDs where it matters.

That will assist Labour, but incumbency (and the Communications Allowance) will work against them.

Also we may be double-counting some of these lefty ex-LibDems. If they identify Lib but voted Lab tactically last time, the increase national in vote share from them turning into Lab identifiers won't win Lab any more seats.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

FPT:

Mr. Random, I agree that having a wife is not in itself a problem. But having the wife be such a big role, and as Mrs James Bond, is (as you say) a miscalculation. It's a great shame because Freeman and Cumberbatch are excellent.

Having just recalled Scrappy-doo is pregnant it seems unlikely they will actually kill her off... oh well.

RichardNabavi

AveryLP said:

"A tightening in the eligibility requirements for some state benefits might also have led to an intensification of job search."

If that is so, then it is massively good news (and a tremendous vindication of the argument IDS has been making for years); it would indicate that the country does not have to be forever trapped in a vicious spiral of long-term unemployment, rising welfare payments, and new jobs going disproportionately to immigrants.

Or, at least, it would be massively good news provided the electorate don't throw it all away again in 2015.

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

FPT:

Mr. Random, I agree that having a wife is not in itself a problem. But having the wife be such a big role, and as Mrs James Bond, is (as you say) a miscalculation. It's a great shame because Freeman and Cumberbatch are excellent.

Having just recalled Scrappy-doo is pregnant it seems unlikely they will actually kill her off... oh well.

Mrs James Bond was a pivotal character in the early Bond films.

taffys

will there be sufficient benefit scroungers left to vote for Labour in May 2015?

Even on websites like the Mail, the jobs numbers have been given a giant MEEHH!

All the best rated comments are about slave labour, zero hours contracts, nothing but jobs in Mcdonalds and fiddled figures.

Perhaps this attitude goes some way to explaining why the tories aren't doing better in the polls.

AlastairMeeks

I expect that this effect will show itself to some extent at the next election but:

1) I'm not convinced that marginals polls are especially reliable.
2) At 35:35, the swing to Labour will be smaller so any differential swing will be smaller.
3) Much depends on which voters the Conservatives were to win back on a hypothetical swingback to 35:35

Summary: I dunno, lol.

Sean_F

Hugh said:

Sean_F said:

MrJones said:

Sean_F said:

Back in 2001, Labour would have won 140 more seats than the Conservatives, had their vote shares been equal. That advantage has fallen away very rapidly, in subsequent elections. IMO, that advantage will fall further in 2015, as the impact of double incumbency kicks in.

I don't know the numbers so maybe i'm wrong but isn't that just saying the vote in leafy areas is split between Con and Lib while the vote in the non-leafy areas is split between Lab and don't vote?

Back in 2001, droves of voters were voting Labour, Lib Dem, or Nationalist, just to keep the Conservative out.

The same thing will happen next year.

Perhaps, but one would expect to see it happening in recent local elections, if that were so.

TOPPING

PP unaccountably do not yet have a price for the fight of the year.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2014/01/charles-saatchi-vs-taki-im-a-cage-fighter-still-want-to-insult-me/

TGOHF

taffys said:

will there be sufficient benefit scroungers left to vote for Labour in May 2015?

Even on websites like the Mail, the jobs numbers have been given a giant MEEHH!

All the best rated comments are about slave labour, zero hours contracts, nothing but jobs in Mcdonalds and fiddled figures.

Perhaps this attitude goes some way to explaining why the tories aren't doing better in the polls.

Its the same with help to buy - those sneering are the ones with a job or house already.

The internet has given Britain a voice - and it has chosen to use it to whine about others climbing up the ladder..

taffys

it would be massively good news provided the electorate don't throw it all away again in 2015.

You only have to read the threads below the jobs report on some leading newspapers to learn that some people are never satisfied.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, Diana Rigg was delightful.

NickPalmer

taffys said:

Mike is obviously correct, but there's one ray of hope.

Labour have moved to the left. They will not be targeting the marginals with the same 'don't frighten the middlebrow horses' policies that they have been since 1997.

And their leader is not a 'don't frighten the middlebrow horses' leader, either.

Not in 2010. Much though I liked Gordon in many ways, I don't think his best friend would have called him a "don't frighten the middlebrow horses leader".

TGOHF

NickPalmer said:

taffys said:

Mike is obviously correct, but there's one ray of hope.

Labour have moved to the left. They will not be targeting the marginals with the same 'don't frighten the middlebrow horses' policies that they have been since 1997.

And their leader is not a 'don't frighten the middlebrow horses' leader, either.

Not in 2010. Much though I liked Gordon in many ways, I don't think his best friend would have called him a "don't frighten the middlebrow horses leader".

Gordon transcended left or right wing - that's how useless and mad he was.

david_herdson

On topic, UKIP taking votes from the Tories in safe seats where it doesn't matter, but not in marginals where there is a risk of letting Labour or the Lib Dems in, would go some way to redress the balance. Call it the SeanF factor if you like.

AveryLP

RichardNabavi said:

AveryLP said:

"A tightening in the eligibility requirements for some state benefits might also have led to an intensification of job search."

If that is so, then it is massively good news (and a tremendous vindication of the argument IDS has been making for years); it would indicate that the country does not have to be forever trapped in a vicious spiral of long-term unemployment, rising welfare payments, and new jobs going disproportionately to immigrants.

Or, at least, it would be massively good news provided the electorate don't throw it all away again in 2015.

Richard

The mere fact that the BoE is endorsing the view by proposing it as a contributory cause to falling unemployment and the existence of greater than assumed slack in the labour market will prompt the think tanks to test the hypothesis with further research.

I would expect reliable and independent statistics to emerge validating or rejecting the trend within weeks.

On throwing it all away in 2015, I have greater confidence in the great British public. Surely they wouldn't be that stupid, would they?

dugarbandier

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, Diana Rigg was delightful.

oh aye.

OHMSS the best bond film in my opinion

RichardNabavi

AveryLP said:

On throwing it all away in 2015, I have greater confidence in the great British public. Surely they wouldn't be that stupid, would they?

Lots of Frenchmen voted for Hollande. Lots of Italians voted for a party led by a clown. I hope that the British public will have more sense than to vote for Miliband or his assistant Farage, especially given that the current government has been so good, but it is prudent to plan for the worst.

MrJones

If it's people who were never unemployed in the first place getting more welfare money through working tax credits than they were getting from unemployment or invalidity benefit then what exactly are the public throwing away - other than the blinkers that a lot of the negative effects of the political class' immigration policies were hidden inside the huge growth of the shadow economy?

edit: stressing the *If*

Theuniondivvie

TOPPING said:

PP unaccountably do not yet have a price for the fight of the year.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2014/01/charles-saatchi-vs-taki-im-a-cage-fighter-still-want-to-insult-me/

I'd see Taki as a biter, and Saatchi, obviously, a throttler.

AlastairMeeks

One of the Tory fifth columnists in action again today:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100256060/how-ukip-and-the-conservatives-can-both-win-the-wythenshawe-and-sale-east-by-election/

Toby Young does not articulate why he considers a UKIP MP to be more friendly to the Conservatives than a Labour MP. I would have thought the opposite to be true.

AveryLP

taffys said:

will there be sufficient benefit scroungers left to vote for Labour in May 2015?

Even on websites like the Mail, the jobs numbers have been given a giant MEEHH!

All the best rated comments are about slave labour, zero hours contracts, nothing but jobs in Mcdonalds and fiddled figures.

Perhaps this attitude goes some way to explaining why the tories aren't doing better in the polls.

The five stages of grief, as identified in 1969 by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, are:

• denial
• anger
• bargaining
• depression
• acceptance

The passengers on the good ship Labour are still at Stage 1 in the sequence.

We need to study carefully the posts of Hugh, compouter, IOS, SMukesh, Bobajob and Nick Palmer over the next few months to identify the shifts across the boundaries.

Best not to include Southam Observer in this list as he appears to have reached Stage 4 in advance of his colleagues.

Take heart SO, it won't be long before you can rest content in the final category!

isam

Farage on gay marriage, the weather, and womens pay..

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/455294/Nigel-Farage-on-why-Ukip-will-go-on-speaking-up-for-common-sense

TOPPING

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

PP unaccountably do not yet have a price for the fight of the year.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2014/01/charles-saatchi-vs-taki-im-a-cage-fighter-still-want-to-insult-me/

I'd see Taki as a biter, and Saatchi, obviously, a throttler.

One of those can they both lose please situations.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Antifrank, one suspects Young is writing to garner views and retweets and the like (and doing a fine job of it). If he genuinely believes the Conservatives helping UKIP to a by-election victory is in the blues' interest then he's a very silly sausage.

Come the General Election a nationwide pact between the blues and purples *could* make sense, but only in theory. In practice, it'll be ignored (as we saw last time, I think). It's rather galling as I agree entirely with UKIP's raison d'etre, but their strategy seems as clever as Jovian's treaty with Shapur.

volcanopete

The strange death of Liberal Democrat Britain.http://www.channel4.com/news/lib-dems-nick-clegg-rennard-huhne-tuition-fees

It includes this statement "Now "the pollster's pollster" Bob Worcester is predicting they'll only win 24 seats at the 2015 election.Ladbrokes have them in groupings.21-30 seats is 4-1.(31-40 is 11-4 fav.) and PP have 34.5 5/6 up or down.

Bob Worcester made his prediction at their conference and received this reponse.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/bob-worcester-lib-dem-2015-result-36270.html

His prediction looks more probable this week.The 4-1 is very tempting.

Neil

edmundintokyo said:

In any case if the arithmetic was that tight I doubt they could count on their whole party voting for it.

They managed to get the votes for it last time. It's just that before they could confirm the new boundaries the Lib Dems changed their minds.

Richard_Tyndall

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Antifrank, one suspects Young is writing to garner views and retweets and the like (and doing a fine job of it). If he genuinely believes the Conservatives helping UKIP to a by-election victory is in the blues' interest then he's a very silly sausage.

Come the General Election a nationwide pact between the blues and purples *could* make sense, but only in theory. In practice, it'll be ignored (as we saw last time, I think). It's rather galling as I agree entirely with UKIP's raison d'etre, but their strategy seems as clever as Jovian's treaty with Shapur.

I don't think one should confuse what Toby Young wants with what UKIP wants. He might be going on about a pact of some sort but it is certainly not being advanced as a viable idea by UKIP at the moment. And I am pretty sure they are sensible enough to realise that in a Northern constituency like W&S any sign of a pact might lose UKIP more votes than they could gain.

Neil

volcanopete said:

Now "the pollster's pollster" Bob Worcester

Pollster's pollster? Wasnt he the personal pollster of President John Kerry? His methodology is amaturish and the relevant odds show how much weight the market gives his opinion.

edmundintokyo

antifrank said:

One of the Tory fifth columnists in action again today:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100256060/how-ukip-and-the-conservatives-can-both-win-the-wythenshawe-and-sale-east-by-election/

Toby Young does not articulate why he considers a UKIP MP to be more friendly to the Conservatives than a Labour MP. I would have thought the opposite to be true.

The act of advocating a tactical vote for UKIP in a seat Labour are very likely to hold anyway makes it more convincing when he tries to talk kippers into voting Con in actual marginals in 2015.

taffys

If UKIP are confident enough about getting labour votes, they might feel they do not need, or maybe even want, tory defectors.

edmundintokyo

Neil said:

edmundintokyo said:

In any case if the arithmetic was that tight I doubt they could count on their whole party voting for it.

They managed to get the votes for it last time. It's just that before they could confirm the new boundaries the Lib Dems changed their minds.

The backbenchers who voted against Lords reform knew what they were doing. It was two birds with one stone: Kill Lords reform and avoid somebody messing with your job.

If the boundary reform vote was more finely balanced there would be an incentive for Tories to put their heads above the parapet.

hucks67

Tories could win a majority, if the economy performs well until May 2015, with unemployment reducing and wages levels increasing above inflation. They will also need to rely on UKIP not doing as well as current polls and also Lib Dems voters not moving tactically to Labour.

But the biggest factor that could help Tories win, is a complete b*lls up of an election campaign by Labour. If Labour don't come forward with a manifesto that adds up, they will be torn apart. There are many unanswered questions about what tax and spending decisions Labour will make to deal with the nations debt.

I don't think I would put money on just one outcome. Probably a coalition between Labour and Libs most likely at the moment.

MarkSenior

Conservatives have lost control of Winchester City Council after 2 councillors defected to the Lib Dems . , Jamie Scott and Derek Green both represent St Luke ward .

Neil

MarkSenior said:

Conservatives have lost control of Winchester City Council after 2 councillors defected to the Lib Dems . , Jamie Scott and Derek Green both represent St Luke ward .

Are they looking for a piece of the action?

AndyJS

Toby Young could be expelled from the Conservative Party for saying Tory supporters in Wythenshawe ought to be vote UKIP and that the Tories shouldn't even field a candidate, but I suspect Cameron doesn't want the publicity that would come with such a move.

Sean_F

taffys said:

If UKIP are confident enough about getting labour votes, they might feel they do not need, or maybe even want, tory defectors.

I have a real fear that Brian Coleman will find his way into UKIP one day.

Neil

Sean_F said:

taffys said:

If UKIP are confident enough about getting labour votes, they might feel they do not need, or maybe even want, tory defectors.

I have a real fear that Brian Coleman will find his way into UKIP one day.

For a second I thought "wouldnt you be delighted to be rid of him" and then I realised it was be a case of him following you over. Hmm, have UKIP decided on their 2016 London mayoral candidate yet... Do any UKIP positions come with a ceremonial chain? That would be a clincher.

TGOHF

MarkSenior said:

Conservatives have lost control of Winchester City Council after 2 councillors defected to the Lib Dems . , Jamie Scott and Derek Green both represent St Luke ward .

What have they got to hide ?

taffys

AndyJs

Toby Young points out that UKIP chose not to field a candidate against a handful of very skeptical tories in 2010.

I wonder if they will do that in 2015.

Ninoinoz

david_herdson said:

On topic, UKIP taking votes from the Tories in safe seats where it doesn't matter, but not in marginals where there is a risk of letting Labour or the Lib Dems in, would go some way to redress the balance. Call it the SeanF factor if you like.

It would, but that didn't exactly happen in Eastleigh, did it?

FYI, I shall be voting Labour at the next general election, just to get rid of the Tory MP.

The immediate priority is re-capturing the Conservative Party from the Cameroon clique.

Random

tpfkar said:

The Tories seem to have Stockholm Syndrome with First Past the Post.

The seven stages of grief traditionally comprise - Shock or Disbelief; Denial; Anger; Bargaining; Guilt; Depression; Acceptance and Hope.

Isn't it time that the losers of the AV referendum moved past at least stage 2 or 3?

david_herdson

Ninoinoz said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, UKIP taking votes from the Tories in safe seats where it doesn't matter, but not in marginals where there is a risk of letting Labour or the Lib Dems in, would go some way to redress the balance. Call it the SeanF factor if you like.

It would, but that didn't exactly happen in Eastleigh, did it?

FYI, I shall be voting Labour at the next general election, just to get rid of the Tory MP.

The immediate priority is re-capturing the Conservative Party from the Cameroon clique.

1. Voting in by-elections (or Euro-elections, or - to an extent - local elections), is always different from general elections as there's no risk of the government falling if a protest vote results in a victor the voter doesn't want.

2. Actually, the Lib Dem vote dropped slightly more than the Tory vote in Eastleigh.

3. At the by-election, it didn't really matter in the big scheme of things whether Tory or Lib Dem won as both would be supporting the government.

4. Activists who prefer ideological purity to the necessary compromises of parties that aspire to government deserve the oblivion to which they'd condemn their own preferred views. They are unrealistic in any democracy - or internet trolls.

DavidL

It is inevitable that there will be some bias in favour of Labour at the next election but I am fairly confident it will not be as large as it was in 2010, let along 2005 and 2001 where it was ridiculous.
Firstly, I suspect that quite a number of Labour supporters will not be willing to vote tactically for the Lib Dems this time. This has 2 effects. First it increases the number of Labour "wasted" votes and secondly it just might increase the number of tory MPs increasing the efficiency of their votes.
Secondly, I suspect Labour will also pick up a significant increase in any share of the vote in their safe seats. Miliband may be uninspiring but he is not mad or bad and quite a number of Labour voters in safe seats who could not bring themselves to vote for Brown may well turn out this time.
Thirdly, in those overly large safe tory seats I expect UKIP to pick up a significant number of votes (if no seats). This will significantly improve the efficiency of the tory vote provided that those voters lost in the safe seats are replaced by new votes won in the marginals.

The last bit is the key and obviously the tricky bit. I think Labour, with the skills of Mandy, overperformed in certain areas last time notably London and Birmingham. I really wonder if a party that looks ever more likely to be underfunded and without the subsidies of nearly 100 sitting MPs using communication allowances, office expenses and the like can match that performance. I suspect not.

Morris_Dancer

Mods, is it ok to post about some games I'm looking to sell? It's a one-off thing (because of the new consoles coming out). If not, that's cool.

OldKingCole

AndyJS said:

Toby Young could be expelled from the Conservative Party for saying Tory supporters in Wythenshawe ought to be vote UKIP and that the Tories shouldn't even field a candidate, but I suspect Cameron doesn't want the publicity that would come with such a move.

Why does anyone take any notice of what TY says?

david_herdson

Neil said:

volcanopete said:

Now "the pollster's pollster" Bob Worcester

Pollster's pollster? Wasnt he the personal pollster of President John Kerry? His methodology is amaturish and the relevant odds show how much weight the market gives his opinion.

Calling an election wrong based on opinion polls is one thing, calling it wrong based on exit polls is worse, but calling it wrong based on real, counted votes really is embarrassing and yes, I wouldn't be risking much on his analysis.

MrJones

I wonder if Channel 4 and BBC are going to be door-stepping Hancock over this redacted report like they did with Bloom?

david_herdson

edmundintokyo said:

Neil said:

edmundintokyo said:

In any case if the arithmetic was that tight I doubt they could count on their whole party voting for it.

They managed to get the votes for it last time. It's just that before they could confirm the new boundaries the Lib Dems changed their minds.

The backbenchers who voted against Lords reform knew what they were doing. It was two birds with one stone: Kill Lords reform and avoid somebody messing with your job.

If the boundary reform vote was more finely balanced there would be an incentive for Tories to put their heads above the parapet.

Not for the first time, the "Tories killed Lords reform" myth gets wheeled out. It's nonsense.

A few Tory rebels threatened to vote against the government on a procedural motion that would have meant there'd have been greater discussion. It would have caused a delay, but hardly a fatal one - and of course, it never even took place. It was Clegg who took Lords reform off the table. One has to assume that given that he then went back on his word that there was no link between that and boundary reform, he was looking for an excuse.

Morris_Dancer

F1: Most boring race of the year (arguably) to be consigned to darkness:
www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/9128261/night-time-schedule-confirmed-for-2014-bahrain-gp-as-race-marks-tenth-anniversary

Morris_Dancer

Indeed, Mr. Herdson. If there is another coalition then both parties involved with pay great attention to the detail of timing to avoid the Lib Dems getting their referendum then reneging on their part of the bargain.

tpfkar

Random said:

tpfkar said:

The Tories seem to have Stockholm Syndrome with First Past the Post.

The seven stages of grief traditionally comprise - Shock or Disbelief; Denial; Anger; Bargaining; Guilt; Depression; Acceptance and Hope.

Isn't it time that the losers of the AV referendum moved past at least stage 2 or 3?

I've got no idea; I didn't vote for AV.

JosiasJessop

Ninoinoz said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, UKIP taking votes from the Tories in safe seats where it doesn't matter, but not in marginals where there is a risk of letting Labour or the Lib Dems in, would go some way to redress the balance. Call it the SeanF factor if you like.

It would, but that didn't exactly happen in Eastleigh, did it?

FYI, I shall be voting Labour at the next general election, just to get rid of the Tory MP.

The immediate priority is re-capturing the Conservative Party from the Cameroon clique.

Cameron's more popular than the party. It's dangerous to think that getting rid of him and moving backwards to some past time can improve the party's ratings.

Times change, and the public moves on. Political parties have to move on with them.

MikeL

Per Mike Smithson: Lab 2% behind could give a Lab majority.

Per Peter Kellner: Lab lead of 7% could be required for a Lab majority.

A very, very big difference! Who will be right?

http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf

Morris_Dancer

Mr. L, a big difference indeed. Given Mr. Crosby got closer to the 2010 result than most here I'd be interested in hearing what he thinks on the matter.

Quincel

taffys said:

AndyJs

Toby Young points out that UKIP chose not to field a candidate against a handful of very skeptical tories in 2010.

I wonder if they will do that in 2015.

Not a chance, the decision is viewed very negatively in UKIP circles and is one of the reasons Lord Pearson was driven from his position and appears to have lost all influence in the party.

anotherDave

JosiasJessop said:

Ninoinoz said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, UKIP taking votes from the Tories in safe seats where it doesn't matter, but not in marginals where there is a risk of letting Labour or the Lib Dems in, would go some way to redress the balance. Call it the SeanF factor if you like.

It would, but that didn't exactly happen in Eastleigh, did it?

FYI, I shall be voting Labour at the next general election, just to get rid of the Tory MP.

The immediate priority is re-capturing the Conservative Party from the Cameroon clique.

Cameron's more popular than the party. It's dangerous to think that getting rid of him and moving backwards to some past time can improve the party's ratings.

Times change, and the public moves on. Political parties have to move on with them.

+2%.

http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/1076/sunday-mirror-independent-on-sunday-political-poll.htm

The Conservatives tried their look-at-nice-Mr-Cameron campaign in Eastleigh. They went backwards.

DavidL

For me this coming week is going to be very important for the outcome of the next election. The unemployment figures today are simply staggeringly good and are dominating the news cycle. If the tories do not get traction and a significant narrowing of the Labour lead over the next week they really are in trouble.

If they do the focus will return to Ed's leadership and Ball's position. Neither of those will do Labour any good.

Morris_Dancer

The chap who 'resigned' over the Mitchell affair has had his offer of resignation refused:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25850209

MikeSmithson

MikeL said:

Per Mike Smithson: Lab 2% behind could give a Lab majority.

Per Peter Kellner: Lab lead of 7% could be required for a Lab majority.

A very, very big difference! Who will be right?

http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf

Me

Garethofthevale

DavidL said:

It is inevitable that there will be some bias in favour of Labour at the next election but I am fairly confident it will not be as large as it was in 2010, let along 2005 and 2001 where it was ridiculous.
Firstly, I suspect that quite a number of Labour supporters will not be willing to vote tactically for the Lib Dems this time. This has 2 effects. First it increases the number of Labour "wasted" votes and secondly it just might increase the number of tory MPs increasing the efficiency of their votes.
Secondly, I suspect Labour will also pick up a significant increase in any share of the vote in their safe seats. Miliband may be uninspiring but he is not mad or bad and quite a number of Labour voters in safe seats who could not bring themselves to vote for Brown may well turn out this time.
Thirdly, in those overly large safe tory seats I expect UKIP to pick up a significant number of votes (if no seats). This will significantly improve the efficiency of the tory vote provided that those voters lost in the safe seats are replaced by new votes won in the marginals.

The last bit is the key and obviously the tricky bit. I think Labour, with the skills of Mandy, overperformed in certain areas last time notably London and Birmingham. I really wonder if a party that looks ever more likely to be underfunded and without the subsidies of nearly 100 sitting MPs using communication allowances, office expenses and the like can match that performance. I suspect not.

David, I was going to post something similar to your first 3 points so glad you got there first. While in a 35/35 result Lab may still got more seats, I doubt the gap will be as wide as above.

In my view I don't think either of the big 2 will get 35% anyway!

MikeSmithson

david_herdson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Neil said:

edmundintokyo said:

In any case if the arithmetic was that tight I doubt they could count on their whole party voting for it.

They managed to get the votes for it last time. It's just that before they could confirm the new boundaries the Lib Dems changed their minds.

The backbenchers who voted against Lords reform knew what they were doing. It was two birds with one stone: Kill Lords reform and avoid somebody messing with your job.

If the boundary reform vote was more finely balanced there would be an incentive for Tories to put their heads above the parapet.

Not for the first time, the "Tories killed Lords reform" myth gets wheeled out. It's nonsense.

A few Tory rebels threatened to vote against the government on a procedural motion that would have meant there'd have been greater discussion. It would have caused a delay, but hardly a fatal one - and of course, it never even took place. It was Clegg who took Lords reform off the table. One has to assume that given that he then went back on his word that there was no link between that and boundary reform, he was looking for an excuse.

David. That is rubbish and you know it.

AndyJS

MikeL said:

Per Mike Smithson: Lab 2% behind could give a Lab majority.

Per Peter Kellner: Lab lead of 7% could be required for a Lab majority.

A very, very big difference! Who will be right?

http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf

The share of the vote for the two main parties has been in decline for many elections which means a hung parliament encompasses a large range of vote shares.

Pulpstar

Lol over a million quid matched on Betfair on the 4:25 at Kempton.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Smithson, is it ok to post about some games I'm looking to sell? It's a one-off thing (because of the new consoles coming out). If not, that's cool.

Neil

anotherDave said:

The Conservatives tried their look-at-nice-Mr-Cameron campaign in Eastleigh. They went backwards.

Their candidate choice cant have helped.

Pulpstar

Bookies will be completely trembling with fear now.

DavidL

Garethofthevale said:

DavidL said:

It is inevitable that there will be some bias in favour of Labour at the next election but I am fairly confident it will not be as large as it was in 2010, let along 2005 and 2001 where it was ridiculous.
Firstly, I suspect that quite a number of Labour supporters will not be willing to vote tactically for the Lib Dems this time. This has 2 effects. First it increases the number of Labour "wasted" votes and secondly it just might increase the number of tory MPs increasing the efficiency of their votes.
Secondly, I suspect Labour will also pick up a significant increase in any share of the vote in their safe seats. Miliband may be uninspiring but he is not mad or bad and quite a number of Labour voters in safe seats who could not bring themselves to vote for Brown may well turn out this time.
Thirdly, in those overly large safe tory seats I expect UKIP to pick up a significant number of votes (if no seats). This will significantly improve the efficiency of the tory vote provided that those voters lost in the safe seats are replaced by new votes won in the marginals.

The last bit is the key and obviously the tricky bit. I think Labour, with the skills of Mandy, overperformed in certain areas last time notably London and Birmingham. I really wonder if a party that looks ever more likely to be underfunded and without the subsidies of nearly 100 sitting MPs using communication allowances, office expenses and the like can match that performance. I suspect not.

David, I was going to post something similar to your first 3 points so glad you got there first. While in a 35/35 result Lab may still got more seats, I doubt the gap will be as wide as above.

In my view I don't think either of the big 2 will get 35% anyway!

I think the tories will but I don't think Labour will. Whether that lead is enough to stop Labour being the largest party is harder to call. At the moment I would guess tories 37, Labour 33, Lib Dems 18, UKIP 8. If that is anywhere near right the two main parties are going to be close in size.

david_herdson

MikeSmithson said:

david_herdson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Neil said:

They managed to get the votes for it last time. It's just that before they could confirm the new boundaries the Lib Dems changed their minds.

The backbenchers who voted against Lords reform knew what they were doing. It was two birds with one stone: Kill Lords reform and avoid somebody messing with your job.

If the boundary reform vote was more finely balanced there would be an incentive for Tories to put their heads above the parapet.

Not for the first time, the "Tories killed Lords reform" myth gets wheeled out. It's nonsense.

A few Tory rebels threatened to vote against the government on a procedural motion that would have meant there'd have been greater discussion. It would have caused a delay, but hardly a fatal one - and of course, it never even took place. It was Clegg who took Lords reform off the table. One has to assume that given that he then went back on his word that there was no link between that and boundary reform, he was looking for an excuse.

David. That is rubbish and you know it.

No it's not. When did "the Tories", or indeed *any* Tories vote against Lords reform?

What happened was that some Conservative back-benchers announced their opposition to a time-limiting motion. Given the provisions of the Bill, that was entirely justified. Matters of that significance should be properly discussed, particularly when the proposals were as daft as those put forward. It was certainly far less significant than the spanner the Lib Dems threw in the NHS reform bill.

As that NHS bill proved, it is possible to get reform onto the statute book, even with substantial scepticism on the government benches, if you're prepared to battle it out for long enough, to invest enough political capital in it, and to make enough concessions. Clegg folded at the first hurdle. I have no doubt that the passage of the bill would have been long and bloody, but I also have no doubt that it would have passed eventually had the will been there. Lords reform is never easy - look at 1909-11, 1947(?), or 1999 - but the lesson is that the Commons ultimately wins if it keeps at it. Why the Lib Dems thought it would be easier this time is a question I can't answer. Actually, I can - but not by accepting the assumptions of it.

Clegg had assured a Select Committee that there was no link between boundaries and Lords reform, yet later justified the decision to back off one precisely because of the 'failure' of the other. What changed? The only justifiable explanation I can think of is that the benefits of Lords reform weren't seen as being worth the costs of the new boundaries - so they'd rather have neither than both, even if it meant going back on their word.