Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s no way that UKIP should be betting favourite to win
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s no way that UKIP should be betting favourite to win most votes at EURO2014 based on current polling
It’s not often that we see such a mismatch between the betting on an election just three and a half months away and what the pollsters are telling us. That’s what’s happening with the May Euro elections where the UKIP winning most votes prices remains strong even though there’s little polling evidence to support it.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
One thing worth noting: UKIP polled very similar in 2009 euros, compared to 2004, notwithstanding the fact they polled 2nd due to Labour's collapse. They'll prob clean up a lot of the EngDem and BNP vote this time, but they might not break 25%. However, I also very much doubt that Labour can more than double their 2009 vote to break into the 30s.
Confusing, eh?
OGH's point is important: the national vote share and the number of seats won may fit poorly if turn-out varies much from one region to another (we tend to think of it as a national phenomenon usually).
I wonder how much has been placed in bets on this market, and whether or not UKIP supporters are not disproportionately responsible for its shape.
If she runs she wins the nomination at least. The odds against her being blind sided by a brilliant campaigner like Obama twice must be astronomical.
Can the republicans find a candidate who is (a) sane and (b) well, that is the main priorty really. Christie should have been that candidate but it appears he or his staff fall at the first hurdle, a bridge too far perhaps.
I wonder if our resident bitcoin-evangelist will link to the following story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26118002
Soon:
* POP *
It is tempting to view UKIP's vote share in 2009 as a ceiling, because they saw so little advance from 2004, but there were so many votes to smaller parties that you'd expect UKIP to hoover up.
I think Neil called this right yesterday. We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this ICM snapshot, but UKIP are very likely to rise in the polls as the elections approach, just as they did with the locals last year and just as they did with the European elections five years ago. A relatively modest swing of 5% from each of Labour and Tories to UKIP would put UKIP in front by a whisker.
It's also worth noting that voters can be pretty cute. Boris won the mayoral election last time around but Labour won the Assembly vote that took place at the same time. On that basis, it is quite possible we may see very different results in the locals and the Euros.
I like our host's 10/1 bet (I would say that, I'm on it too), but labour should now be odds on favourite.
Paul Waugh@paulwaugh·2 mins
Looks like @Ed_Miliband is missing Daybreak on ITV cos he's stuck near flood-hit Maidenhead.
Has this resulted in us ignoring a big, black furry thing with sharp teeth? Der Spiegel seems to think so: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/german-court-calls-ecb-bond-buying-into-question-a-952556-2.html
They suggest this is a boost to the AfD, roughly the German equivalent of UKIP. Whilst a decision of the German constitutional court about the extent of the ECB's mandate to buy bonds seems a somewhat unlikely doorstep conversation piece there does seem to be an increasing mood that the EU has gone a little too far. The Swiss decision was another straw in the wind.
I have little time for UKIP and even less for their MEPs but are they really going to fall back at the time of such a mood? Can't see it.
1) Smuts was a much more complex character than the one-dimensional image (censure) you portray.
2) Mandela was a much more complex character than the one-dimensional image (acclamation) you portray.
3) By having a thread about Smuts, some people might actually have learnt something about an interesting and important piece of history. It certainly caused me to go on-line for a refresher.
If UKIP isn't second or better in the European elections the majority of post-election coverage will be about how badly they've done, false dawn, etc.
German polls show everyone much as they were at the last election, including the AfD:
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
I'm curious to see the Portsmouth result.
On topic: the betting reflects the belief that people haven't much thought to the Euros but when they come to it many will swing to UKIP in order to give Europe a slap. I think the media will play that up (for drama, and in some cases to set UKIP up for a fall) and it might happen. But at present I do expect Labour to win them, partly because the party is treating them more seriously this time. The Conservatives would need to gain more than 10 points in a few months on the ICM poll (which probably understates losses to UKIP for methodological reasons) - possible but seems unlikely.
The polls may not be factoring in the right number of people who will get off their arses for the first time to express their frustration.
To me, the real battle is the battle for fourth. Will the pesky Greens beat the yellow peril?
Come on OGH. Or is is it them staying away themselves?
http://www.lefigaro.fr/culture/2014/02/10/03004-20140210ARTFIG00155-un-celebre-paparazzi-francais-promet-un-scoop-mondial-sur-barack-obama-et-beyonce.php
You are right of course - I will stick around. My apologies.
twitter.com/thomasknox/status/432471776333807616/photo/1
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/janice-atkinson/european-elections-liberal-democrats_b_4530668.html
It's wall to wall bad coverage, and that will surely feed the narrative that Cameron is, well, just not very good, and that his government is incompetent.
The Mail are launching a petition to get Foreign Aid money diverted back to British flood victims, and given that there's more bad weather forecasted, the coverage can only get worse.
I have sympathy for the government, as its been raining cats'n'dogs for ages, successive governments have fumbled the ball, and houses get built on floodplains, but the music has stopped on this government's watch, and there ain't any chairs left.
It's going to take some serious PR magic to turn this around, but I don't think they'll manage it.
Neither seems to have had much effect at the GE. This flooding 'crisis' is tiny compared to the £8 billion F&M cost the country.
I've voted in every election since 1970 (and most council elections), and it's always been Labour or LD.
In the Euros, I will vote Ukip.
Why? Cameron is presentable but he's still a Tory. Cleggy will never see any problem with the EU even if they invade. Ed is an L-plate leader; he might grow into the job, but he might not. And beginners always give in to vested interests. So it's the fruitcakes for me this time.
Will my head explode?
The biggest problem for the government is how they've conducted themselves. They have no control over the weather, but they can control their behaviour. Sadly, they seemed a little too keen to start blaming each other, and residents who'd had the temerity to actually live in places that flood. It doesn't look good, when they're fighting like ferrets in a sack.
I merely want to fire one or two (or several) of them into the heart of the sun from some sort of giant cannon. Isn't that what we all want, really?
Undoubtedly, though, we are going to hear some very unpleasant insurance stories over the coming months. This may play into the predatory capitalism meme.
It's a difficult call. Labour have made a habit of underperforming badly against expectations in Euro elections ever since PR was introduced. Blair could only get 29% in 1999 when still popular and Labour went downhill from there. I still can't see Labour matching 29% now. UKIP have on the other hand exceeded expectations and this 20% is the worst poll we've seen for them, so it may not be typical and ICM's methodology may be beyond that. So it's a tough call, but I'd still see UKIP shaving it from Labour at this stage.
Barclays increased its bonus pool for 2013 by 10% to £2.4bn, while pre-tax profits fell a third to £5.2bn.
Overall, in 2009, turnout in the Euros was 34%, very little different from standard turnout in local elections. The people who turn out to vote in secondary elections will mostly turn out this time, whether or not there are local elections in their area.
The petrol protestors vastly overplayed their hand and ended up losing just about all the support they had when it turned out they were really just another vested interest that had no problem in disrupting everyone else in order to get what they wanted. They were no better than the RMT or the NUT. Foot & Mouth was something that was happening "elsewhere" and that most people had no real idea about.
At the very least this seems yet another area of uncertainty hanging over the EZ, something neither they nor we need.
The "three million jobs" argument is based on the view that all our exports to the EU cease, and we lose every job from that, yet all our imports from the EU continue, and also that trade from elsewhere does not increase due to our ability to sign other trade deals. It's a lie worthy of Fox News, and the fact Nick Clegg is willing to use it again and again really goes straight to the heart of his reputation as being an honest straight talker.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26121239
The equivalent would be asserting that every single smoker in the UK might get lung cancer and die this year.
The 3 million jobs figure was plucked out of mid air.
We shall see - but don't forget this also kicks the can down the road for a couple of years. Given that everywhere - except France - in the Eurozone is improving, then if the OMT is ruled unconstitutional in late 2016, it may all be moot.
I'm not sure how the public are going to react to this long-running situation becoming worse again, before it starts improving.
If AGW is a fact – and let us for the sake of argument assume that it is – then what policy response is best? Well that’s a political / economic decision. It’s not for the scientists to say.
If I wanted to know more about the effect of sunspots, CO2, deforestation, or whatever on rainfall and temperatures – well I wouldn’t ask a politician, I’d ask someone who knew WTF they were talking about – the scientists.
But if we want to ask what policy to adopt in the face of the facts then we shouldn’t ask the scientists – it’s not their area of competence. The greens will always give a ‘back to the stone age’ kneejerk response. It’s this BS that now drives our energy policy, wind subsidies, flood plans (or lack of), and a whole bunch of other policy areas. We need rational economic decisions to drive policy.
Should we not instead be asking ourselves: Well, looks like it’s going to rain more and storm surges will become more common – should we not defend ourselves from the consequences? We can’t stop this as the trajectory of climate change is utterly outside the ability of UK or indeed global politicians to determine. (Just look at the environmental disasters China is willing to accept in its journey to power and the scale of their CO2 output vs our own). We should simply accept the fact that we’re in for some storms and rain and get busy adjusting our lives, our infrastructure, and our expectations. Including the expectation that the state is sometimes impotent.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/mail-demands-foreign-aid-to-be-spent-on-replacing-british-carpets-2014021183451
"In a hard-hitting editorial the paper said that British carpets must always come first and that most foreign aid was used to build Chinese spaceships.
Meanwhile, the Mail underlined the horrifying extent of Britain’s humanitarian crisis by illustrating its story with a photo of a moist BMW."
Your comment about F&M highlights the sad lack of understanding and knowledge that so many people have for the countryside. Which is why that little fool (*) Lord Smith will get away with his recent comments about flooding the countryside rather than towns.
(*) I really want to put it much stronger than that. How the f' did such an incompetent fool become a) a Lord, and b) in (part-time) chair of such an important agency?
Grrr ...
I guess as usual my musical references were just to damn subtle for PBers to notice
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/01/15/pb-nighthawks-is-now-open-30/
I think tonight's will be One Direction themed
This history can often be tracked back through posters who have been commenting for a number of general elections, and indeed, quite a few who go as far back as Jacobitism and even to the Punic Wars....
It also has a number of people who have no interest in betting on politics, but like to vent their two-penneth, which can be revealing to those who do bet. There is also a fair bit of expertise on sports (tennis and F1 have shared some profitable tips in the past, football more recently - horse-racing less so!!) and for example Roger on the Oscars.
There is also a bizarre wealth of expertise here in the most esoteric of matters, so if you need a restaurant recommendation in Gabon, for example, someone will put you right.
Do stick around. You'll get the hang of it. Just don't expect it to be 100% current politics. Or 100% serious. Somewhere nearer to 14% is about par....
As for Lord Smith - I do not know what he said, but overall the coverage on the politics of recent events does seem to have relied on partial reporting, selective use of figures and quotes taken out of context. Again, it was ever thus.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100259034/uk-floods-eric-pickles-gets-it-in-the-neck-from-david-cameron/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Personally don't think the public is inclined to change voting intention over the issue - they'll just vaguely blame everyone in sight and move on.
On another subject, I'm not a zealot on abortion rights and voted for some restrictions, but this is a dreadul story which really calls for swift government action rather than "no comment". Even the woman making the claims looks embarrassed as she reads from the script.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/10621459/Abortion-will-make-women-child-sex-abusers.html If profits falling by a third is good, I'd hate to work for a company that you felt was doing badly.
It's 26%.
On the plus side, losing 3 million jobs would finally put Blanchflower in the ball-park of being right about unemployment levels!
I wrote almost exactly what Mike has said in this thread header last night when the poll came out, and no one agreed with me!
And bet accordingly.
if the polling breakdown on where UKIPs current support has come from is right then Mike was overstating the share that comes from others or DNV. It is about 13% on average, although will be higher in areas where UKIP do well.
What that means is that there is a higher level of support for ukip from voters who have switched from Tory Labour and LD, and therefore the ukip vote is probably less flaky than people like to admit
Can't we all play together nicely now?
Oh fair enough! Good luck
SO has no problem sending a few beamers down in reply!