A sensible question re the SNP vote 2015 If NO wins, I expect pressure on the SNP vote - why vote for independence when the question has been answered for a generation? However, if YES wins (I'm 50/50 on it ATM), what happens to the SNP Westminster vote? Is it job done and the SNP vote stays home? Does it drift back to the Tartan Tories, Labour etc, and will the Lib Dem collapse (much of which went to the SNP in the Scotlection) reverse somewhat?
Been discussed on and off in recent months (before your advent I assume). Basically, if I am not misrepresenting too many folk*, the consensus is that after a Yes it will go sharply pro SNP in view of the need to negotiate for Scotland etc. (Indeed this may already be happening given recent polling, though far too much will happen before that to be a reliable guide.)
This will be an issue for any currently Unionist party after the vote unless they move to cut all links with London. This is perhaps technical for the Tories and LDs as they are, I think, already [edit: organizationally] separate, and the Greens are already completely distinct. And we - probably - won't have too many UKIP MPs in Scotland.
The worst problem would be for Labour as their One Nation slogan and thinking shows, and as it is one monolithic organization - they do not have a separate Scottish Labour Party (despite what they like to claim, and what they put on the voting ballot papers), as was rather obviously shown in the recent Falkirk crisis.
If No wins, I wouldn't be so sure that the SNP would lose out - the SNP have become the natural party og efficient government in Scotland anyway, certainly for the Scottish elections. And a lot of people will have been cheesed off (and very wary of the No campaign's promises of Jam The Year or Three After Next Election) and may decide to vote for SNP rather than (as many do at present) tactically for Anyone But a Tory, which favours Labour and to some extent the LDs. But again that is a long way in the future. Note also, however, that a SNP MP becomes worth that much more in a hung or coalition parliament, so that will increase the likelihood of voting for SNP MPs.
*There is a minority who argue either that the 2010-15 Pmt should be extended till 2016 in view of the crisis, or that the Scots should instantly be deprived of parliamentary representation if they vote Yes, either instantly or at the GE.
But how is that relevant to Shadsy when trying to price up how many seats the LDS will get at the next GE?
It's very relevant if he's looking at bands, rather than a single under/over figure. If you look at the probabilities as uncorrelated, and use the sums of the various probabilities to price up the bands, you'll underestimate the probability of the extreme bands (LibDem meltdown or LibDems winning most of their plausible targets).
So if you were to price up a spread bet in the scenario you have described , what would your price be?
24, of course.
Well that's what Shadsy has done, and you said it was wrong
It's wrong to interpret the result (as I thought Shadsy was doing, apologies if he wasn't) as meaning that his figure of 31 or thereabouts was the most likely outcome.
No, I think the sum of all the probabilities should in theory be the correct place to put a spread around. Of all the combinations of them hitting 31 (or any other total), some will be positively related contingencies, some negative, all balancing out.
The fact that 31 is less than the actual seats line we have for the LDs (37.5) is partly explained by the possible gains.
Another factor is that their raw probabilities expressed via the odds are probably a shade too low, because we have probably over-priced UKIP and, especially, Labour chances. Labour should really be bigger than 100/1 in most of these seats. That marginally deflates the probabilities of the actual contenders.
I'm not sure those two things would really explain the difference, so either we have underestimated the LD chances in these seats, or the line total is too high.
And yes, I notice the walking. The weaving through the shop displays irritates me more, but there's a lot of walking involved (the walk to the lounge where you have to go 50 metres in the wrong direction to get there is the most annoying).
5,000 Tier Points gets you a Concorde Room card and allows you to skip the jink...
If you are going to, or coming from, somewhere north of Leeds it's better to use the A1/M1 link road.
A47 out of Norfolk, A17 to Newark, A1 to Scotch Corner, A66 to the M6 and associated A74(M) to Glasgow, A82 to Fort William. 10 hours with 4 stops, salmon for supper and a skinful in the bar :-)
Wow. At least the scenery will improve once you're over the border. Trust (and hope) that the skinful is scheduled for arrival only!
In late April I am scheduled to do this journey: my home to Paddington (car), Paddington to Heathrow (train), Heathrow to Kuala Lumpur (plane), Kuala Lumpur to Perth (plane), Perth to Broome (plane), Broome airport to Broome port (car), where I get on a boat heading along the Kimberley coast, arriving in Darwin ten days later. Then I fly back from Darwin to Perth, drive on to Fremantle, drive back to Perth, fly back to London, via Kuala Lumpur, where, a few hours later, I get on another plane, which flies me to Calgary, then I get another plane which flies me to Yellowknife, then I get a private plane to Nunavut and the Arctic Haven Wilderness Lodge to watch 350,000 caribou migrate across the Canadian barrenlands.
You are a lucky man getting to drive from Camden to Paddington. Route 66 has nothing on it
Actually, my direct route to Paddington goes right through Regent's Park and past most of the Nash terraces, some of the most beautiful urban architecture in the world, so yes, it is a highlight.
If you are going to, or coming from, somewhere north of Leeds it's better to use the A1/M1 link road.
A47 out of Norfolk, A17 to Newark, A1 to Scotch Corner, A66 to the M6 and associated A74(M) to Glasgow, A82 to Fort William. 10 hours with 4 stops, salmon for supper and a skinful in the bar :-)
Wow. At least the scenery will improve once you're over the border. Trust (and hope) that the skinful is scheduled for arrival only!
In late April I am scheduled to do this journey: my home to Paddington (car), Paddington to Heathrow (train), Heathrow to Kuala Lumpur (plane), Kuala Lumpur to Perth (plane), Perth to Broome (plane), Broome airport to Broome port (car), where I get on a boat heading along the Kimberley coast, arriving in Darwin ten days later. Then I fly back from Darwin to Perth, drive on to Fremantle, drive back to Perth, fly back to London, via Kuala Lumpur, where, a few hours later, I get on another plane, which flies me to Calgary, then I get another plane which flies me to Yellowknife, then I get a private plane to Nunavut and the Arctic Haven Wilderness Lodge to watch 350,000 caribou migrate across the Canadian barrenlands.
You are a lucky man getting to drive from Camden to Paddington. Route 66 has nothing on it
Actually, my direct route to Paddington goes right through Regent's Park and past most of the Nash terraces, some of the most beautiful urban architecture in the world, so yes, it is a highlight.
@shadsy - I would expect the seats line to be higher than the figure you get by adding up the probabilities.
You can think of the probability for a given seat as arising from two parts: the national performance of the LibDems (the same for all the seats), and seat-specific factors.
Since you are looking at seats where the LibDems have a good chance (say 60%), it is a bit like the example I gave earlier for 40 target seats: if the seat-specific factors made a zero contribution to the 60% probabilities in each seat, you'd have a 60% chance of every one winning. Add in a small amount of seat-specific factors, and you'll begin to get a few seats losing despite good national performance: that 60% probability line becomes a fuzzy band close to the full 40 seats, so your line (i.e. the number at which the probability is equal on either side) should still be close to 40 seats.
Well, you would expect that the correct number would be 35 or so, because of the over-round. (I.e., evens would actually imply a 55% chance of taking the seat).
Run a 1,000 monte carlo simulations on 60-odd seats, and you would get a normal distribution with the peak being at 31.
The freedom to have access to private pension funds after age 55 is as much a Lib Dem policy as a Conservative policy. Steve Webb, the Lib Dem Work and Pensions minister, has been saying for some time that annuities are unsatisfactory and more recently that people should be free to invest their pension funds where they wish eg a Lamborghini.
Lib Dems seem to be missing a trick by allowing the media to portray the pension move as entirely a Conservative initiative.
And yes, I notice the walking. The weaving through the shop displays irritates me more, but there's a lot of walking involved (the walk to the lounge where you have to go 50 metres in the wrong direction to get there is the most annoying).
5,000 Tier Points gets you a Concorde Room card and allows you to skip the jink...
Those were the days...
Sadly now I barely qualify for Guest status - although I am GfL. The downside of travelling economy in Europe I suppose!
Comments
The fact that 31 is less than the actual seats line we have for the LDs (37.5) is partly explained by the possible gains.
Another factor is that their raw probabilities expressed via the odds are probably a shade too low, because we have probably over-priced UKIP and, especially, Labour chances. Labour should really be bigger than 100/1 in most of these seats. That marginally deflates the probabilities of the actual contenders.
I'm not sure those two things would really explain the difference, so either we have underestimated the LD chances in these seats, or the line total is too high.
Bannf and Buchan!
I have no doubt that there are many stonking great apartments and houses in there but his was disappointingly tiny, not to say dingy.
Big shame after the big entrance....
You can think of the probability for a given seat as arising from two parts: the national performance of the LibDems (the same for all the seats), and seat-specific factors.
Since you are looking at seats where the LibDems have a good chance (say 60%), it is a bit like the example I gave earlier for 40 target seats: if the seat-specific factors made a zero contribution to the 60% probabilities in each seat, you'd have a 60% chance of every one winning. Add in a small amount of seat-specific factors, and you'll begin to get a few seats losing despite good national performance: that 60% probability line becomes a fuzzy band close to the full 40 seats, so your line (i.e. the number at which the probability is equal on either side) should still be close to 40 seats.
Run a 1,000 monte carlo simulations on 60-odd seats, and you would get a normal distribution with the peak being at 31.
Fantastic catch by Tamin in the last over.
Lib Dems seem to be missing a trick by allowing the media to portray the pension move as entirely a Conservative initiative.
Sadly now I barely qualify for Guest status - although I am GfL. The downside of travelling economy in Europe I suppose!
Agent Mata to hopefully do the job for us Chelsea boys.