Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Based on current polls the betting markets are understating
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Based on current polls the betting markets are understating Labour’s chances of an overall majority
Betfair’s next general election overall majority market was set up a couple of months after May 2010 and in the early period the price on a CON majority soared to 40%+.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Agreed. I have thought that since the very first bookie prices for the 2015 UK GE were posted, way back in May (?) 2010. I think Ladbrokes were first out with prices, only a couple of weeks after the 2010 UK GE.
Antifrank was a strong advocate of a hung parliament back in that first year of debate. I think he has bought himself into a heavy NOM position, cos he kept saying he was buying a little each month. I always thought he was bonkers. Not for buying NOM, but for buying NOM at such ridiculously short prices.
My basic point back then, and it is still the same point now, is that if the Lib Dem group of MPs is smaller than it was in 2010, and nobody argues that it won't be, then it gets harder and harder to hit the Hung Parliament "sweet point". The smaller the Lib Dem group, the harder it gets, untill the "sweet point" almost vanishes.
I say "almost", because of course you've got 18 NI MPs, a few SNP/PC MPs, a Green, and perhaps a few "others" next time (UKIP, Ind?), but unless anybody wants to forecast a quadrupling of the number of SNP MPs (I don't) AND a No vote at the IndyRef (I don't) then even a dramatic increase in the size of the SNP/PC group of MPs cannot surely compensate for the (huge?) decrease in the size of the Lib Dem group of MPs.
So, even if/when the Lab/Con poll difference narrows, and it will (probably soon IMO), it will STILL be extremely difficult to hit the HP/NOM "sweet spot".
It's all about statistics stupid.
I think Lab Maj and NOM should be about the same. By-election swingback seems to point pretty much at the border between those two. Labour will have to beat a lot of first-time incumbents to get a majority, and a certain amount of the UKIP vote (not all of it) is likely to revert to Con, especially in the Lab/Con marginals.
How many Lib Dem seats do you think Labour will win?
It's ridiculous. I think Uefa have been rather pathetic here.
I suspect you have to be pretty bloody-minded, if you are parti pris, to bet against your own tribe. (Although I've known a few candidates who bet against themselves, so they'd have at least a consolation prize...)
They will get a lot more votes in Con/Lib Dem seats that get them nothing.
They will get a higher turnout in their safer seats than Gordon Brown could enthuse (if they don't they will lose).
The tories will lose more of their vote in their safe seats to UKIP.
To get an overall majority Labour cannot assume a repeat of 2005 (probably their absolute peak in terms of efficiency). I think Labour will need a lead of 4-5% to get an overall majority, less than the tories but not much so.
Because of that I think that no overall majority is rightly favourite despite a reduction in Lib Dem seats narrowing the window slightly.
I tend to agree about the tory majority. All of the good economic news over the last 12 months has made far too little difference to date and the trend in their favour is very hard to discern.
A missed opportunity. They could have staged a game in a disputed Armenian enclave within Azer - shurly a first for a Uefa tournament?
In 2001 Labour won 432 seats with 10.725m votes giving them a seat for every 24, 826 votes.
In 2010 they won 258 seats with 8.606m votes giving them a seat for every 29,979 seats.
In 2005 they won 355 seats with 9.552m giving them a seat for every 37.164 votes so I was wrong about that being a peak.
The difference in the vote from the tories obviously should make a very substantial difference as should the absolute figure (Blair got 43% in 2001) which is what makes the efficiency of the vote in 2010 all the more astonishing. They got a winners bonus for err, losing. I don't believe they can repeat anything like that.
ICM did a "wisdom" question in their most recent poll, asking people what they thought the result would be : 53:47 to "No" - closer than the 57:43 people said they would vote.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-points-to-close-result-1-3317310
258 x 7185 = 1,853,730 votes without gaining a single seat.
This efficiency is key to a Labour majority. Any corrections to my arithmetic are welcome.
poll to be taken with a large pinch of salt imho.
By George !
FPT isam - you think I'm unfit for office because I don't recognise the phrase "The Last Boy Scout"? Bemusedly googling shows it to be an action movie from 1991 (it's one of the periods I was abroad so I have a cultural gap). Was it amazingly good?
On another subject, a constituent asked me for advice at the weekend about naturalisation. She's South African, married to a Brit, and has lived in Britain for 15 years. Her English is as good as mine (though with a slight Afrikaans accent). She's dutifully taken the "living in Britain" test but now has to take the "knowledge of English" test, even though she's spoken English all her life. I've checked it out and the local options are that she can choose between a slow route where she has to pay to attend classes about Jack and Jill and what is a verb, or a fast route where she pays even more money to just take the exam. Specifically to those worried about immigration - wouldn't you agree it was reasonable to have some sort of cheap, quick option where someone could verify in 15 minutes' conversation that the applicant is basically a native English-speaker? I'm in favour of naturalisation requiring a good understanding of English, but isn't this just a tiresome hurdle for those who really do have it?
When I was staying with family in Canada I was assured that even low-tax libertarians thought milking applicants for citizenship as hard as possible was a spiffing wheeze.
It's not quite as ridiculous as canvassing 'polling' anecdotes, though ...
The timeliness of the poll is that both the UK and Scottish governments are holding cabinets in the Aberdeen area today. It would be interesting to know which government organised theirs first, and who reacted ...
This is now not just a Mail story, perhaps the BBC should now report it and try to salvage any credibility they still have left.
Might the polling/betting disparity be due to the potential electoral earthquake from north of the border?
As well as losing many MPs, Labour would also probably be hit in the General Election.
There is no love for any of the political parties, politicians or the political classes. Milliband failed the 5 minute test of looking initially like a prospective PM, and will always have an uphill battle. LibDems are toast in many areas, Tory party are fighting on left and right with UKIP hurting them.
There is no reason, in betting terms, to back any party. They all look like loosers, and there are good reasons why they all should loose.
Also, many people could be sitting on their votes until the 2014 results are known.
I have encountered quite a bit of apathy around as many believe that no party can improve the lot of their family and the UK and no party has a credible long term plan to improve matters.
Many pensioners are spending their capital as interest received is very low and many young people are despondent about earning enough to own their home or even start a family. There is quite a bit of anger at the house price bubble which has not burst caused by GB and his policies and they see rents rising as BTL people capitalise on their misfortune. For many of those young people with relevant skills they see the only way to improve their personal lot is to emigrate.
It is certain that the UK has not got the answer to competing in the global economy and many do not see their prospects improving by staying in the UK. For the unskilled they say - why work as we can live on the benefits.
That said, I did have one unnerving conversation yesterday.
Me: Knock on door.
Girl's head from upper window: "Hello!"
Me: "Er, hi, I'm from Labour, we wondered how you'll be voting next year?"
Girl: "Is that, like, David Cameron?"
Me: "No, he's a Tory. We're the other lot."
Girl: "OK, you've got my vote. Need to put some clothes on. Bye!"
Not entirely convinced.
You weren't convinced she was telling you the naked truth Nick?
I am sure that as the quantity of questioning goes up the quality of the results will go down.
And plenty of people on here who were critical of Russia's attitude to gay people will think it disgusting that we send money to such a government .
Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline)
24/02/2014 08:47
India recriminalises homosexuality dailym.ai/1cGAPtA
I'm greatly looking forward to your in-depth analysis when IIP publish their methodology.
If I was to predict anything - Lab to maybe fall over the line panting and gasping, with a small majority, and with little if no help from seat gains anwhere in the south and south east.
The most divisive election since the war.
Brit nat complacency = bad news for Darling
In my experience the erotic possibilities in door knocking are less than zero.
Neither Labour, the Conservatives, the Lib Dems or UKIP have the answer in house prices (at the best they fiddle at the margins) shows that either the problem is a political hot potato they do not want to touch, or/and that the problem is intractable within society - we are wedded to owning detached houses as an ideal, with a garden and garage.
We also do not hear much about the problems in the countryside, where locals simply cannot afford to live, and where incomers often only live for two or three months of the year. This - rather than the Lib Dems mansion tax - is the sort of area where the focus should go, and would help fix no end of housing and societal problems.
Sadly, it would also cause any government that proposed to bring it in during peacetime to lose an election.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/3587342
"A Press and Journal-commissioned poll has revealed support for Scottish independence has dipped across the north and north-east over the last year.
The survey conducted after last week’s intervention from Chancellor George Osborne on currency found that 65% of respondents intend to vote “no” in September’s referendum.
Just 17% of 500 people questioned said they will be voting “yes”, while 18% said they were still undecided.
For the full story, pick up a copy of today’s Press and Journal "
They have one of the most awful websites that it's been my misfortune to come across. Organising bridal wear exhibitions seems to be one of their other specialities.
http://www.ideasinpartnership.co.uk/market-research.html
We can all be guilty of projecting our views onto others. The best way to get past this is to talk less and listen more. There are few who engage in politics who grasp this simple truth.
As a possibly-not-very-interesting aside, the value of my house seems to have increased by rather a large amount in the last few months, something I put down to the opening of a brand new secondary school (or village college in Cambridgeshire terms) a short amble away.
Over the last 25 years or so they have argued their case with dogged determination. They have changed public opinion. Politics in this country would be a lot better off if more politicians tried to change public opinion, rather than simply to pretend that they agree with it.
"Did you reward Labour by voting for them in 2010, after 13 years of massive house price inflation? Surely that was equally wrong?"
Yes, this is what I was referring to and left the UK with a difficult problem. If house prices had come down since 2010 or were forced down then thousands would have been left in negativity equity.
However, salaries have not risen to compensate for that false price boom, due the need to rectify the deficit and also to compete in the global market. Global shortages of food and energy have further squeezed available income. So rents have risen and the ability to save money whilst renting has decreased - taking with it hope.
Will we have to return to rent control (which can lead to Rachmanism) or a severe tax on second homes or on BTL property.?
Some stereotypes are unearned, others....
MP canvassing a street knocks on the door of the Smith household. A voice calls "Come in..."
He walks in to hear "We're in the bedroom."
Entering, he encounters a naked couple in bed.
"Hmmm... I'm sorry to bother you, I'm just canvassing for the Tory party..."
"I'm Labour."
"Oh, thank-you." Turning to the bloke. "Can I ask how Mr. Smith votes?"
Woman: "Oh this is Mr. Jones from Number 22, and he votes Labour too!"
"http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/23/scottish-referendum-salmond-independence-oil?CMP=twt_gu"
"Scottish referendum: Salmond offers the independence of a granny flat
It would be a strange sort of freedom in which all the decisions that matter are made in London"
The NE country folk are different though.
where they did some polling and discovered that the proposed policy wasn't very popular - cue discussions about ditching the policy, or arguing for it as people clearly didn't know enough about it and how it would affect them.
It seems that there is a significant difference between those who are willing and able to lead puplic opinion, and those who follow it. I'm not sure why or what to do about it however.
But to return to my point since no one has pointed out any howling errors. In 2010 Labour got 8,606,000 votes. So an increase of 1, 853,730 would be an increase of 21% and not an additional seat. There were 27, 148K votes cast in 2010 so this would be the equivalent of a 7% shift in voting intentions and not an additional seat.
I really do not think it is unfair to say that the assumption that Labour will win a majority is almost entirely dependent on their votes being as efficient as they were in 2010 or 2001 rather than 2005. That assumption is therefore the most important single factor in determining the likely outcome of the election. And I am not sure about, even recognising that their vote should become more efficient as their vote share increases.
The sample size of 500 is subject to a much higher MoE than almost all polls we see in UK polls. The pollster also has very little record to speak of and clearly the 65/17 spread is an outlier to other polls.
That said, were I enjoying a full Scottish breakfast at Auchentennach Castle this morning I'd rather read I had a lead of 48 points than not, if for nothing else than the morale of the troops.
I was flicking through it later that evening, in a haze of nostalgia, when I noticed several things which made me a little uneasy:
1) The main story was called "The Chinkee China Boys", and was filled with "Velly solly, Mr Dan" type of speech.
2) Another story about a "red indian" who was dyed white and his quest to be turned dark again. (again, full of stereotyped speech).
3) Some scenes in the Indian Subcontinent with numerous references to "the big white man" (who soon taught those foreign johnnies a thing or two).
4) Dan tamed a tough wild bear by basically beating it into submission.
5) Another story set in Mexico which made Speedy Gonzales look like a reasonable portrayal of a Mexican.
6) Various depiction of Africa as full of people with spears and large lips.
So, do I talk to my son about this, or is that a hand-wringing overreaction? Amazing how much things have changed in just 30 years.
And on 'beating a bear into submission': he'll see and read much worse than that. Just ensure he doesn't try it himself.
As I've said passim, there's a great deal of positives to learn about the village I live in, and much that can be taken forward and improved in the next new villages. As an example on a topical note, trials of Sustainable Urban Development Systems (SuDS) were made here to reduce the risk of flooding. If people want more info, I can post some links.
Sadly, it looks like the council is letting developers forget these lessons in the other new towns being built in the area. This means they might well be *worse* than Cambourne. Which may well be good for my house price, but bad for the people who have to live in those houses.
Your argument is relevant in general, but to the specific scenario of the 2015 GE it does not apply as much as you might think for a variety of reasons.
1. The polls and by-elections point to a swing from Conservatives to Labour. Although I've previously argued that a Con majority is possible I still think it is very unlikely because I expect there to be a swing in national vote share against them.
2. More Lib Dem held seats have Tories second and Labour behind. This means that in the most likely scenario of a swing from Con to Lab loss of Lib Dem seats will make less difference to the chance of a Labour majority than would be the case in general terms, because how the remaining seats are divided between Con and Lib Dem has no effect on whether Labour can form a majority on their own.
3. If one accepts points 1 and 2, then the main question in terms of a Hung Parliament is: Can Labour gain 67 seats to add to their 258 seat total. They picked up one in Corby, but also managed to lose Bradford West.
I think 67 seats is a stretch for Labour. If one puts 35:34:12:12 (L:C:Ld:U) into Electoral Calculus then Labour come out 1 seat short of a majority, even with 16 gains from Labour the Lib Dems, the Bradford West by-election loss reversed and Brighton Pavilion taken from the Greens.
Close elections are quite common in the UK. Since WWII there have been 18 general elections. Two have resulted in Hung Parliaments (Feb 1974, 2010), and in five more the majority has been 21 seats or less (1950, 1951, 1964, Oct 1974, 1992). Although the Lib Dems will lose seats in 2015, they are unlikely to have more seats then in all five of those general elections, which would have created four more Hung Parliaments (with 1992 possibly still a small Conservative majority).
So, given the number of Lib Dem MPs that we expect in 2015, one-third of previous general elections would have resulted in a Hung Parliament. If there is one thing we can all probably agree on it is that Miliband is not going to win a Blair/Thatcher/Attlee landslide victory - landslide victories resulting in a majority of 100 or greater account for one-third of general elections since WWII.
Brick and mortar holiday homes are a social curse, but something many of us want. It's hard for a politician to tell us that something we really want is bad for everyone else, especially when the media types love having second, third or fourth homes themselves.
And it's the same with the curse of buy-to-let, which also needs tackling.
Sadly, the politicians concentrate only on the top end (e.g. the mansion tax), rather than at the real problems.
In his book The Highland Clans, Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk claimed that Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom "is the lawful Jacobite sovereign of this realm". Moncreiffe made the following argument:
"... by the fourteenth century it had become common law (in both England and Scotland) that a person who was not born in the liegeance of the Sovereign, nor naturalised, could not have the capacity to succeed as an heir .... In Scotland, this law was modified in favour of the French from the sixteenth century, but was otherwise rigorously applied until the Whig Revolution of 1688, after which it was gradually done away with by the mid-nineteenth century. It was precisely because of this law that Queen Anne found it necessary to pass a special Act of Parliament naturalising all alien-born potential royal heirs under her Act of Settlement of the throne. But, of course, from the Jacobite point of view, no new statute could be passed after 1688 .... The nearest lawful heir of the Cardinal York in 1807 was, in fact, curiously enough, King George III himself, who had been born in England (and therefore in the technical liegance of James VIII).
Under Moncreiffe's theory, however, James VI of Scotland could never have succeeded as James I of England in 1603. This problem, recognized in 1603, had been circumvented at the time of James's accession by the ahistorical assertion that Scotland and England had been "anciently but one" kingdom, and that the succession of the Scottish monarch to the throne of England was a "reuniting" of two parts of a single kingdom, i.e., that Scotland was not really a foreign country – a concept emphasized by James's insistence on the use of the name Great Britain for the united realms of England and Scotland."
Other Jacobites are clearly splitters ....
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking · 6 mins
Egyptian Prime Minister Hazem el-Beblawi unexpectedly announces his government's resignation in a TV address http://bbc.in/1fMPd0I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIFUm70n0fU
In response to Lennon, I think it's very probable she expected someone else.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.pl?CON=34&TVCON=&LAB=35&TVLAB=&LIB=12&TVLIB=&UKIP=12®ion=All+GB+changed+seats&boundary=2010&seat=--Show+all--&minorparties=Y
...and see how many of those will have first-time incumbency. Absolutely loads of them. (Most of them?) Add to that DavidL's point that Labour's vote efficiency advantage over Con will probably drop, and getting from here to a majority looks like a seriously big heave.
I think the markets know what they're doing, apart from the people betting on Con Maj, who are nuts.
Oh er Missus ....