Missed it, I'm afraid. I spend most of my time betting the horses these days. The margins are much tighter but there is action and decent liquidity most days.
Congrats to you and Neil though. Always pleased to learn of a decent gambler collecting.
Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?
Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.
UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.
But you just said:
"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"
Yes?
We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.
So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.
Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.
If you gave me the Westminster results of two regions of England I could probably take a fair shot at what the voting results in a 3rd region were.
It's certainly not perfect, but not voodoo either.
Still not understanding the Media's view that Labour didn't do well. They've picked up more seats, more Councils and they are dominant in London.
In pre-vote unspun discussions it was generally reckoned that if Labour gained less than 150, Milliband was toast. He would survive, but be damaged, at around 250. The actual 300 or so is ok....sort of, but hardly a ringing endorsement.
Not is it the disaster claimed by many before the results came in.
My view of these locals is that it's a bit "meh" for the two big parties, but no worse than that. All to play for at the GE and it changes little. The Tories have a London problem, Labour have a WWC problem. Even Steven.
Some lefty smartarse on here a few weeks back claimed there is no such thing as WWC, hopefully he has learnt different now.
Previous information was that Lewisham was doing its council seat count tomorrow, with the mayoral count today. But I don't know if they've changed that.
Amusing to see this thread so full of an unholy alliance of Labour and UKIP supporters laying into lefty* academics on the basis a complete lack of understanding of notional national vote shares.
* I don't know for a fact they are all lefties, but I do know for a fact that some of them are, and strongly so. For the others we have to estimate, but they are academics, so we can model their political positioning fairly easily!
There's no misunderstanding.
Either their previous projected value of 23% was too high because it didn't take into account the London effect or the current 17% value is too low because it doesn't take into account the London effect.
It could quite easily be the former (and given how badly the pollsters predicted the London results i think it probably is).
That isn't Ukip declining. That's just a model that didn't take into account a major difference in voting pattern.
As for Thrasher, I did enjoy him following up his much less favourable comment by saying that attempts to downplay UKIP's results were 'mean' - who knows if this is a sly dig at OGH, or Fisher et al.
UKIP did a very poor job of expectations management, so if people are seeing this as a poor result it's partly the party's own fault. In terms of the locals, they don't seem to have advanced compared with last year, and may have gone backwards slightly.
Don't get me wrong, though - I still think they will clean up big-time in the Euros.
Fair enough - in like for like areas I can't see any signs of a retreat - they've won more seats than last year, often in much more interesting areas. Winning the popular vote in Rotherham is a real wow result.
Rotherham looks like a special circumstances case rather than a general indicator. Elsewhere in Labour strongholds it seems to be that UKIP is hoovering up anti-Labour votes that were previously split among other parties, while nibbling at the Labour vote itself rather than taking great chunks out of it.
More like 1974, or 1992 with two unappealing party leaders short of support and ideas, and unstable small majorities. Leading to either a thatcher or Blair hegemony.
I see Ed Miliband as Wilson, but without the canny common touch.
This new four party system will take a while to be properly understood by all of us. The past is no real help. But Labour getting 31% in a GE and basically being a majority government should, hopefully, give a few folk pause for thought.
UKIP was always going to have a great set of results this time. The key thing is how the other parties react. And the direction UKIP takes when it comes to write its 2015 manifesto.
2015GE might be a completely new type of election, I think the closest analogy is the 1922 or 1918 GE.
Still not understanding the Media's view that Labour didn't do well. They've picked up more seats, more Councils and they are dominant in London.
In pre-vote unspun discussions it was generally reckoned that if Labour gained less than 150, Milliband was toast. He would survive, but be damaged, at around 250. The actual 300 or so is ok....sort of, but hardly a ringing endorsement.
Not is it the disaster claimed by many before the results came in.
My view of these locals is that it's a bit "meh" for the two big parties, but no worse than that. All to play for at the GE and it changes little. The Tories have a London problem, Labour have a WWC problem. Even Steven.
Some lefty smartarse on here a few weeks back claimed there is no such thing as WWC, hopefully he has learnt different now.
Missed it, I'm afraid. I spend most of my time betting the horses these days. The margins are much tighter but there is action and decent liquidity most days.
Congrats to you and Neil though. Always pleased to learn of a decent gambler collecting.
I've gone Kingston Hill E/W @ 16s for the Derby, reckon thats any good ?
As for Thrasher, I did enjoy him following up his much less favourable comment by saying that attempts to downplay UKIP's results were 'mean' - who knows if this is a sly dig at OGH, or Fisher et al.
UKIP did a very poor job of expectations management, so if people are seeing this as a poor result it's partly the party's own fault. In terms of the locals, they don't seem to have advanced compared with last year, and may have gone backwards slightly.
Don't get me wrong, though - I still think they will clean up big-time in the Euros.
Fair enough - in like for like areas I can't see any signs of a retreat - they've won more seats than last year, often in much more interesting areas. Winning the popular vote in Rotherham is a real wow result.
Rotherham looks like a special circumstances case rather than a general indicator. Elsewhere in Labour strongholds it seems to be that UKIP is hoovering up anti-Labour votes that were previously split among other parties, while nibbling at the Labour vote itself rather than taking great chunks out of it.
It really gets interesting when these seats come up again, if UKIP can maintain reasonable momentum, at least for local and euro elections. Very different ball game when you start the campaign with a credible vote share to build on.
Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.
The BBC and Channel 4 keep saying the drop in *projected* share shows Ukip declining despite evidence to the contrary staring them in the face. It's a joke.
Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.
OGH seems to think it's very relevant that these meta-numbers suggest UKIP's vote has fallen over 25% in a year. Some people think those numbers are obviously barmy, and others thing questioning those numbers is the preserve of fruitcakes and loons.
OGH is clutching at straws, his hatred of UKIP is clouding his judgement.
As for Thrasher, I did enjoy him following up his much less favourable comment by saying that attempts to downplay UKIP's results were 'mean' - who knows if this is a sly dig at OGH, or Fisher et al.
UKIP did a very poor job of expectations management, so if people are seeing this as a poor result it's partly the party's own fault. In terms of the locals, they don't seem to have advanced compared with last year, and may have gone backwards slightly.
Don't get me wrong, though - I still think they will clean up big-time in the Euros.
Fair enough - in like for like areas I can't see any signs of a retreat - they've won more seats than last year, often in much more interesting areas. Winning the popular vote in Rotherham is a real wow result.
Rotherham looks like a special circumstances case rather than a general indicator. Elsewhere in Labour strongholds it seems to be that UKIP is hoovering up anti-Labour votes that were previously split among other parties, while nibbling at the Labour vote itself rather than taking great chunks out of it.
It really gets interesting when these seats come up again, if UKIP can maintain reasonable momentum, at least for local and euro elections. Very different ball game when you start the campaign with a credible vote share to build on.
Wonder what UKIP's first overall control council will be ?
Still not understanding the Media's view that Labour didn't do well. They've picked up more seats, more Councils and they are dominant in London.
In pre-vote unspun discussions it was generally reckoned that if Labour gained less than 150, Milliband was toast. He would survive, but be damaged, at around 250. The actual 300 or so is ok....sort of, but hardly a ringing endorsement.
Not is it the disaster claimed by many before the results came in.
My view of these locals is that it's a bit "meh" for the two big parties, but no worse than that. All to play for at the GE and it changes little. The Tories have a London problem, Labour have a WWC problem. Even Steven.
Some lefty smartarse on here a few weeks back claimed there is no such thing as WWC, hopefully he has learnt different now.
Well that wasn't me, and he is wrong.
I know that wasn't you but I cannot remember who it was.
So the betting does not indicate they are "certain" to get most votes. Just very, very likely. Both sets of prices indicate that a UKIP 25-35% vote is very likely indeed.
For some reason Farage looks like a Shar Pei fighting dog.
College looks as though he is sitting on a sharpened apostrophe.
Forgive me, Comrade Chancellor, but who is "College". As you know I have been overseas for a number of weeks and don't recall said epithet being mentioned before I left.
Missed it, I'm afraid. I spend most of my time betting the horses these days. The margins are much tighter but there is action and decent liquidity most days.
Congrats to you and Neil though. Always pleased to learn of a decent gambler collecting.
I've gone Kingston Hill E/W @ 16s for the Derby, reckon thats any good ?
I can't be backing Australia at 5-6 !
I've got an Australia ticket at 5/2 but I also like Orchestra at a decent price, however if the predicted rain comes the ground could be crucial come race time.
Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.
OGH seems to think it's very relevant that these meta-numbers suggest UKIP's vote has fallen over 25% in a year. Some people think those numbers are obviously barmy, and others thing questioning those numbers is the preserve of fruitcakes and loons.
OGH is clutching at straws, his hatred of UKIP is clouding his judgement.
A piss poor trait when it comes to betting.
You don't think pb should pay attention to the BBC's national projections?
Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?
Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.
UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.
But you just said:
"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"
Yes?
We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.
So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.
Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.
If you gave me the Westminster results of two regions of England I could probably take a fair shot at what the voting results in a 3rd region were.
It's certainly not perfect, but not voodoo either.
So if I gave you London and, say, the NE Region, you could tell me the results in the SW? Really?
Still not understanding the Media's view that Labour didn't do well. They've picked up more seats, more Councils and they are dominant in London.
In pre-vote unspun discussions it was generally reckoned that if Labour gained less than 150, Milliband was toast. He would survive, but be damaged, at around 250. The actual 300 or so is ok....sort of, but hardly a ringing endorsement.
Not is it the disaster claimed by many before the results came in.
My view of these locals is that it's a bit "meh" for the two big parties, but no worse than that. All to play for at the GE and it changes little. The Tories have a London problem, Labour have a WWC problem. Even Steven.
Some lefty smartarse on here a few weeks back claimed there is no such thing as WWC, hopefully he has learnt different now.
Well that wasn't me, and he is wrong.
Of course there is a white working class. The mistake is to see it as some homogenous grouping. There has always been a substantial non-Labour WWC vote. It's now migrating to UKIP. But in most Labour areas there has been no significant Labour to UKIP move. Rotherham is clearly an exception and there are specific reasons for it. NE Lincs may be another one. But elsewhere? I don't see much evidence. What Labour hasn't done is attracted new voters in its heartlands. That should worry them, but it's a different issue.
The results would look very good for Labour if it was just London. They likely finished up 10% ahead of the Conservatives, and likely control 20 out of 32 boroughs.
The problem is that outside London, their performance was poor, overall.
Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.
OGH seems to think it's very relevant that these meta-numbers suggest UKIP's vote has fallen over 25% in a year. Some people think those numbers are obviously barmy, and others thing questioning those numbers is the preserve of fruitcakes and loons.
OGH is clutching at straws, his hatred of UKIP is clouding his judgement.
A piss poor trait when it comes to betting.
You don't think pb should pay attention to the BBC's national projections?
Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.
OGH seems to think it's very relevant that these meta-numbers suggest UKIP's vote has fallen over 25% in a year. Some people think those numbers are obviously barmy, and others thing questioning those numbers is the preserve of fruitcakes and loons.
OGH is clutching at straws, his hatred of UKIP is clouding his judgement.
A piss poor trait when it comes to betting.
You don't think pb should pay attention to the BBC's national projections?
More like 1974, or 1992 with two unappealing party leaders short of support and ideas, and unstable small majorities. Leading to either a thatcher or Blair hegemony.
I see Ed Miliband as Wilson, but without the canny common touch.
This new four party system will take a while to be properly understood by all of us. The past is no real help. But Labour getting 31% in a GE and basically being a majority government should, hopefully, give a few folk pause for thought.
UKIP was always going to have a great set of results this time. The key thing is how the other parties react. And the direction UKIP takes when it comes to write its 2015 manifesto.
2015GE might be a completely new type of election, I think the closest analogy is the 1922 or 1918 GE.
I was refering to the mess of at least 4 parties getting large number of votes and seats.
Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.
OGH seems to think it's very relevant that these meta-numbers suggest UKIP's vote has fallen over 25% in a year. Some people think those numbers are obviously barmy, and others thing questioning those numbers is the preserve of fruitcakes and loons.
OGH is clutching at straws, his hatred of UKIP is clouding his judgement.
A piss poor trait when it comes to betting.
You don't think pb should pay attention to the BBC's national projections?
The people whose model it is should be asked how come there's a big drop in Ukip's *projected* share when there's an obvious increase in their actual share on the ground outside London but not inside London.
The only explanation is *either* their previous projection was too high or the current projection is too low.
My Holloway ward had two LD councillors till this week, but the Greens were seen as coming on strong after doing well in the Mayoral and Assembly races. As it turned out, they and the LibDems split the non-Labour vote between them (the Tories didn't bother to stand), giving a huge Labour margin on about 55%. Possibly a straw in the wind that the Greens aren't doing that wonderfully. I know the figure that they got 10% where they stood - but there's a reason why they stood there...that they were the sort of wards they could expect to get 10%.
My Holloway ward had two LD councillors till this week, but the Greens were seen as coming on strong after doing well in the Mayoral and Assembly races. As it turned out, they and the LibDems split the non-Labour vote between them (the Tories didn't bother to stand), giving a huge Labour margin on about 55%. Possibly a straw in the wind that the Greens aren't doing that wonderfully. I know the figure that they got 10% where they stood - but there's a reason why they stood there...that they were the sort of wards they could expect to get 10%.
That the Tories didn't even stand says something.
What's your view on why Labour is so strong here compared to elsewhere?
Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?
Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.
UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.
But you just said:
"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"
Yes?
We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.
So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.
Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.
If you gave me the Westminster results of two regions of England I could probably take a fair shot at what the voting results in a 3rd region were.
It's certainly not perfect, but not voodoo either.
So if I gave you London and, say, the NE Region, you could tell me the results in the SW? Really?
At the 2010 election
London (rounding off) Labour, -2 Con +3 LD 0 UKIP 0
Cornwall Labour -7 LD -3 Con +9 UKIP 0
(Wiki happened to have breakdowns for those two).
So taking London and part of the south west and no adjustments whatsoever you can see a vague relationship.
You don't think clever people with more data and better adjustments than that could find an even better set of relationships? Swings across the country tend not to be totally independent of each other..
I see Hillary is now strong favourite for the next POTUS election. Do your "connections"" indicate she is very likely to run?
Hi StJohn. Nice to hear from you again.
Things have been a bit quiet over there for a while. I have a lot of money invested on her running and am watching developments keenly. As far as I am concerned the position remains as it has been for many months - if she's fit, she runs, and if she runs, she wins (the nomination certainly, the Presidency probably.) All my sources, when last consulted, indicated she is fit and will run. I'll post if I detect any change in the wind, but there has been none for ages.
My understanding is that she won't formally declare her hand until about January 2015, but of course there are always those - like Rove - that will try one way or another to pressure her into an early announcement. Maybe that pressure will make her break cover sooner but you can see why she would want to hold back if she can.
This is another example of how pathetic the British media commentariat are. Don't engage with the substance of the argument, just pick at technicalities to try to destroy the person's "credibility". An approach they adopt towards British politics, and one of the reason politics is in such a mess and have opened the door for UKIP (because they stand for ideas and rock-solid principles, like or loathe them, rather than being forced into dry "competence" by the media).
Of course there is a white working class. The mistake is to see it as some homogenous grouping. There has always been a substantial non-Labour WWC vote. It's now migrating to UKIP. But in most Labour areas there has been no significant Labour to UKIP move. Rotherham is clearly an exception and there are specific reasons for it. NE Lincs may be another one. But elsewhere? I don't see much evidence. What Labour hasn't done is attracted new voters in its heartlands. That should worry them, but it's a different issue.
You're correct that it's too simplistic to say all the white working-class are one homogenous group who are all CORE, lifelong Labour voters. But that doesn't mean Labour should write them off. A large part of the working class/lower-middle class has since the 1970s, been part of the crucial swing vote, especially in places like Essex, the Midlands and parts of Yorkshire where people don't really have tribal affinities with one of the main parties or the other. Labour SHOULD be winning them over, and even if many of them voted Tory in 2010 (quelle surprise, a year where the Tories won the overall election, they won most of the swing voters too), I'm fairly sure many current UKIP voters will have voted Labour between 1997 and 2005, and many will have even been in the Labour column earlier in this parliament, especially 2012. Looking at where they came from in 2010 is far too simplistic.
Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?
Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.
UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.
But you just said:
"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"
Yes?
We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.
So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.
Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.
If you gave me the Westminster results of two regions of England I could probably take a fair shot at what the voting results in a 3rd region were.
It's certainly not perfect, but not voodoo either.
So if I gave you London and, say, the NE Region, you could tell me the results in the SW? Really?
At the 2010 election
London (rounding off) Labour, -2 Con +3 LD 0 UKIP 0
Cornwall Labour -7 LD -3 Con +9 UKIP 0
(Wiki happened to have breakdowns for those two).
So taking London and part of the south west and no adjustments whatsoever you can see a vague relationship.
You don't think clever people with more data and better adjustments than that could find an even better set of relationships? Swings across the country tend not to be totally independent of each other..
That would explain the lack of surprises in London.
For some reason Farage looks like a Shar Pei fighting dog.
College looks as though he is sitting on a sharpened apostrophe.
Forgive me, Comrade Chancellor, but who is "College". As you know I have been overseas for a number of weeks and don't recall said epithet being mentioned before I left.
You will note that he is wearing an Old Harrovian tie, whereas in his 21st Century reincarnation the tie changed to an Old Etonian version (worn by Farage in his TV debate with Clegg).
Some PBers, e.g. Stodge, believe the moniker "College" refers to Nige's former school, Dulwich College, but there is no connection with his renounced status as an Old Alleynian.
P.S. In the above pic, College seems to be wearing an OE tie (the photo is a bit blurry. The original model is clearer: http://bit.ly/1gqaLH7 - definitely OH).
Yes, the math is fine and I can't see them scoring less than 25%. They could conceivably score just over 35%, but the odds of them doing so would be (much) shorter than 2/5. So the bet works.
What I want to know is how you get Ladbrokes to take enough of your money to make betting at 2/5 worthwhile - at gunpoint?
Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.
OGH seems to think it's very relevant that these meta-numbers suggest UKIP's vote has fallen over 25% in a year. Some people think those numbers are obviously barmy, and others thing questioning those numbers is the preserve of fruitcakes and loons.
OGH is clutching at straws, his hatred of UKIP is clouding his judgement.
A piss poor trait when it comes to betting.
You don't think pb should pay attention to the BBC's national projections?
Do you think they should?
Yes.
This isn't some random thing, it's Oxford professors with a track record of making this kind of projections.
By all means discuss it, critique it etc. But for a political site that deals heavily in polling, stats, projections etc to just ignore it would seem pretty odd to me.
Tories now wiped out in Lewisham unless something really unexpected happens. Looks to be going the way of Newham. Labour polling 98.8% in some wards here. Probably.
Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?
Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.
UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.
But you just said:
"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"
Yes?
We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.
So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.
Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.
If you gave me the Westminster results of two regions of England I could probably take a fair shot at what the voting results in a 3rd region were.
It's certainly not perfect, but not voodoo either.
So if I gave you London and, say, the NE Region, you could tell me the results in the SW? Really?
At the 2010 election
London (rounding off) Labour, -2 Con +3 LD 0 UKIP 0
Cornwall Labour -7 LD -3 Con +9 UKIP 0
(Wiki happened to have breakdowns for those two).
So taking London and part of the south west and no adjustments whatsoever you can see a vague relationship.
You don't think clever people with more data and better adjustments than that could find an even better set of relationships? Swings across the country tend not to be totally independent of each other..
Very vague! Example: Cornwall lost LDs, London didn't!
I haven't had a bet - but given that there are still some doubts about her certainty to run and also her current general ability, I think she represents very poor value to actually be the next POTUS, at current odds. So no bet for me.
We have a problem for Rowenna...Conservatives just outpolled Labour yesterday in Itchen wards
Yes I was surprised by the popular votes for the whole of Southampton which only gave Labour a lead of 1,676 (2.93%), and suspected the Tories might have done well in Itchen.
@Danny565 - I agree completely. Labour's abject failure to engage with, let alone win over, those not already inclined to support the party is among the major failings of EdM's leadership. The problem is that he and Labour are happy in their not being the Tories comfort zone. And if you can effectively be a majority government on 31% of the vote what incentive do you have to change?
Andy - do you take total votes or just the highest candidate per party in a multi member ward?
Total votes surely?
I'm using highest vote, not average or total votes.
For example if you have a ward where there are 3 Con, 3 Lab, 3 LD, 1 UKIP, 1 Green standing, you have to take just the highest vote otherwise you get an inflated result for the parties with 3 candidates.
Apparently people like Rallings & Thrasher use this method.
I haven't had a bet - but given that there are still some doubts about her certainty to run and also her current general ability, I think she represents very poor value to actually be the next POTUS, at current odds. So no bet for me.
Please keep us posted.
All the best.
Yes, if I were starting from scratch I certainly wouldn't back her at the current odds, although I wouldn't lay either.
Bit more interesting on the Republican side. Have a look at Scott Walker, if you haven't already.
Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?
Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.
UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.
But you just said:
"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"
Yes?
We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.
So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.
Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.
If you gave me the Westminster results of two regions of England I could probably take a fair shot at what the voting results in a 3rd region were.
It's certainly not perfect, but not voodoo either.
So if I gave you London and, say, the NE Region, you could tell me the results in the SW? Really?
At the 2010 election
London (rounding off) Labour, -2 Con +3 LD 0 UKIP 0
Cornwall Labour -7 LD -3 Con +9 UKIP 0
(Wiki happened to have breakdowns for those two).
So taking London and part of the south west and no adjustments whatsoever you can see a vague relationship.
You don't think clever people with more data and better adjustments than that could find an even better set of relationships? Swings across the country tend not to be totally independent of each other..
Very vague! Example: Cornwall lost LDs, London didn't!
Very vague sure, done with less than half the South West and with not even back of an envelope calculations for adjustments.
For example, in 2005 the Lib Dems polled well and won all 6 Cornish MPs so they were coming down from something of a high water mark. Whereas London not so much.
Yes, the math is fine and I can't see them scoring less than 25%. They could conceivably score just over 35%, but the odds of them doing so would be (much) shorter than 2/5. So the bet works.
What I want to know is how you get Ladbrokes to take enough of your money to make betting at 2/5 worthwhile - at gunpoint?
Peter. Shadsy is very fair and allows some bets to be placed at OK stakes.
Btw, if he reads this, his politicalbookie.wordpress.com blog highlighted by OGH recently, is the best recent development in political betting in ages. Well worth a read each day.
I got £53.86 at 15/8 and £58.66 at 13/8 to win approx £42 on either outcome - or lose £112!
@Danny565 - I agree completely. Labour's abject failure to engage with, let alone win over, those not already inclined to support the party is among the major failings of EdM's leadership. The problem is that he and Labour are happy in their not being the Tories comfort zone. And if you can effectively be a majority government on 31% of the vote what incentive do you have to change?
I agree with you that's probably the complacent way of thinking for the likes of Douglas Alexander, and maybe even EdM himself, but I think they're foolish to think it. Even though I don't expect UKIP to completely collapse next year, I expect the Tories to peel off a few voters from them and get to 33-34% of the vote in next year's election, so if Labour stay stuck on 31% then they would be toast in such a scenario.
I do have a slight hope judging by some Labour people waking up and saying publicly that there needs to be a change, though. And I'm also hopeful that the penny might finally be dropping that the way to win over these types of working class/lower middle class supporters is absolutely NOT by embracing Tory economic policies. As I said earlier, I find it quite hard to believe that people are voting UKIP because they want so-called "economic credibility", when UKIP are pretty much the antithesis of "credibility". Nor do I believe people in grim Great Yarmouth which is suffering horribly economically, where there was one of the biggest Lab->UKIP swings compared to 2012, is desperately crying out for more spending cuts.
Ilford North actual (NOT 'projected'!!) votes in the Local Election, 22/5/14:
(eight wards)
Con 41.2% Lab 38.9% UKIP 10.4% LD 6.3% Oth 3.2%
Looking at those figures, the Tories should be about 90% certain to hold Ilford North next year. The problems will come after that if the constituency continues to change.
Andy - do you take total votes or just the highest candidate per party in a multi member ward?
Total votes surely?
I'm using highest vote, not average or total votes.
For example if you have a ward where there are 3 Con, 3 Lab, 3 LD, 1 UKIP, 1 Green standing, you have to take just the highest vote otherwise you get an inflated result for the parties with 3 candidates.
Apparently people like Rallings & Thrasher use this method.
I used the total votes cast for Ilford North above. If only because they were the actual total number of votes cast.
My Holloway ward had two LD councillors till this week, but the Greens were seen as coming on strong after doing well in the Mayoral and Assembly races. As it turned out, they and the LibDems split the non-Labour vote between them (the Tories didn't bother to stand), giving a huge Labour margin on about 55%. Possibly a straw in the wind that the Greens aren't doing that wonderfully. I know the figure that they got 10% where they stood - but there's a reason why they stood there...that they were the sort of wards they could expect to get 10%.
That the Tories didn't even stand says something.
What's your view on why Labour is so strong here compared to elsewhere?
It combines three core Labour voter cohorts - it's highly multi-ethnic and it's got a lot of young working-class people in jobs (so you don't get the demotivation that you run into in really run-down areas) plus some prosperous Guardian fringes (which is where the Green vote comes from). And rents are a significant issue, whereas relatively few people are anywhere near owning their homes so Tory stuff about help to buy and lower IHT seems pretty irrelevant.
Are you lot still on about the BBC share of the vote?! UKIP did very well, they topped the polling in two councils, one of which was with, what, 29% of the vote and they got f all in most of London, Winchester, Manchester, Liverpool, Three Rivers, etc etc etc etc, and yet despite a great result, the kippers are bleating that the projected NATIONAL share isn't enough? Grow up. They don't run any councils, they are opposition in hardly any, they topped ten vote counts in 2013 and afaik two today. Yeah, they are crap in London, it's not like the rest of the councils were 'poor areas' for them - their vote is evenly distributed outside London and Scotland. They got fewer councillors than the busted Lib Dems, yet a higher national share. They are a party 'starting to register', to even pretend they are polling within 10-12% of either Red or Blue nationally in council elections is pathetic fantasy. Stop projecting where you want them to be, and deal with where they are. And while you're at it, be proud of what they achieved, whilst the rest of us are disgusted by it.
Are you lot still on about the BBC share of the vote?! UKIP did very well, they topped the polling in two councils, one of which was with, what, 29% of the vote and they got f all in most of London, Winchester, Manchester, Liverpool, Three Rivers, etc etc etc etc, and yet despite a great result, the kippers are bleating that the projected NATIONAL share isn't enough? Grow up. They don't run any councils, they are opposition in hardly any, they topped ten vote counts in 2013 and afaik two today. Yeah, they are crap in London, it's not like the rest of the councils were 'poor areas' for them - their vote is evenly distributed outside London and Scotland. They got fewer councillors than the busted Lib Dems, yet a higher national share. They are a party 'starting to register', to even pretend they are polling within 10-12% of either Red or Blue nationally in council elections is pathetic fantasy. Stop projecting where you want them to be, and deal with where they are. And while you're at it, be proud of what they achieved, whilst the rest of us are disgusted by it.
Are you lot still on about the BBC share of the vote?! UKIP did very well, they topped the polling in two councils, one of which was with, what, 29% of the vote and they got f all in most of London, Winchester, Manchester, Liverpool, Three Rivers, etc etc etc etc, and yet despite a great result, the kippers are bleating that the projected NATIONAL share isn't enough? Grow up. They don't run any councils, they are opposition in hardly any, they topped ten vote counts in 2013 and afaik two today. Yeah, they are crap in London, it's not like the rest of the councils were 'poor areas' for them - their vote is evenly distributed outside London and Scotland. They got fewer councillors than the busted Lib Dems, yet a higher national share. They are a party 'starting to register', to even pretend they are polling within 10-12% of either Red or Blue nationally in council elections is pathetic fantasy. Stop projecting where you want them to be, and deal with where they are. And while you're at it, be proud of what they achieved, whilst the rest of us are disgusted by it.
You don't understand the argument.
Now I think about it...
I think the 23% last time was too high quite honestly.
@dyedwoolie UKIP neither fills me with pride nor digusts me to be honest.
Are you lot still on about the BBC share of the vote?! UKIP did very well, they topped the polling in two councils, one of which was with, what, 29% of the vote and they got f all in most of London, Winchester, Manchester, Liverpool, Three Rivers, etc etc etc etc, and yet despite a great result, the kippers are bleating that the projected NATIONAL share isn't enough? Grow up. They don't run any councils, they are opposition in hardly any, they topped ten vote counts in 2013 and afaik two today. Yeah, they are crap in London, it's not like the rest of the councils were 'poor areas' for them - their vote is evenly distributed outside London and Scotland. They got fewer councillors than the busted Lib Dems, yet a higher national share. They are a party 'starting to register', to even pretend they are polling within 10-12% of either Red or Blue nationally in council elections is pathetic fantasy. Stop projecting where you want them to be, and deal with where they are. And while you're at it, be proud of what they achieved, whilst the rest of us are disgusted by it.
You don't understand the argument.
Of course I do. Nothing in the results from Thursday suggests that UKIP would be scoring over 17% nationally. The Beeb quite clearly screwed up the vote shares in 2013, when UKIP were nowhere near being within 2% of the Tories nationally.
Are you lot still on about the BBC share of the vote?! UKIP did very well, they topped the polling in two councils, one of which was with, what, 29% of the vote and they got f all in most of London, Winchester, Manchester, Liverpool, Three Rivers, etc etc etc etc, and yet despite a great result, the kippers are bleating that the projected NATIONAL share isn't enough? Grow up. They don't run any councils, they are opposition in hardly any, they topped ten vote counts in 2013 and afaik two today. Yeah, they are crap in London, it's not like the rest of the councils were 'poor areas' for them - their vote is evenly distributed outside London and Scotland. They got fewer councillors than the busted Lib Dems, yet a higher national share. They are a party 'starting to register', to even pretend they are polling within 10-12% of either Red or Blue nationally in council elections is pathetic fantasy. Stop projecting where you want them to be, and deal with where they are. And while you're at it, be proud of what they achieved, whilst the rest of us are disgusted by it.
You don't understand the argument.
Now I think about it...
I think the 23% last time was too high quite honestly.
@dyedwoolie UKIP neither fills me with pride nor digusts me to be honest.
"I think the 23% last time was too high quite honestly."
Are you lot still on about the BBC share of the vote?! UKIP did very well, they topped the polling in two councils, one of which was with, what, 29% of the vote and they got f all in most of London, Winchester, Manchester, Liverpool, Three Rivers, etc etc etc etc, and yet despite a great result, the kippers are bleating that the projected NATIONAL share isn't enough? Grow up. They don't run any councils, they are opposition in hardly any, they topped ten vote counts in 2013 and afaik two today. Yeah, they are crap in London, it's not like the rest of the councils were 'poor areas' for them - their vote is evenly distributed outside London and Scotland. They got fewer councillors than the busted Lib Dems, yet a higher national share. They are a party 'starting to register', to even pretend they are polling within 10-12% of either Red or Blue nationally in council elections is pathetic fantasy. Stop projecting where you want them to be, and deal with where they are. And while you're at it, be proud of what they achieved, whilst the rest of us are disgusted by it.
You don't understand the argument.
Now I think about it...
I think the 23% last time was too high quite honestly.
@dyedwoolie UKIP neither fills me with pride nor digusts me to be honest.
"I think the 23% last time was too high quite honestly."
Actual votes in 2010 were 20% for UKIP, and that didn't include London, Scotland, Wales. So I agree the projection of 23% probably wasn't right. If anything it should have been about 15%.
Comments
Missed it, I'm afraid. I spend most of my time betting the horses these days. The margins are much tighter but there is action and decent liquidity most days.
Congrats to you and Neil though. Always pleased to learn of a decent gambler collecting.
It's certainly not perfect, but not voodoo either.
Either their previous projected value of 23% was too high because it didn't take into account the London effect or the current 17% value is too low because it doesn't take into account the London effect.
It could quite easily be the former (and given how badly the pollsters predicted the London results i think it probably is).
That isn't Ukip declining. That's just a model that didn't take into account a major difference in voting pattern.
I see Ed Miliband as Wilson, but without the canny common touch.
twitter.com/suttonnick/status/469930822930534400/photo/1
UKIP 15,163 (39.00%)
Con 13,605 (34.99%)
Lab 8,092 (20.81%)
LD 1,846 (4.75%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
UKIP +35.12%
Con -14.62%
Lab -0.59%
LD -13.53%
BNP -6.83% (not standing this time)
I can't be backing Australia at 5-6 !
A piss poor trait when it comes to betting.
Basildon perhaps ?
Betfair has UKIP at
1.29-1.3 most votes
and
1.35-1.46 most seats.
So the betting does not indicate they are "certain" to get most votes. Just very, very likely. Both sets of prices indicate that a UKIP 25-35% vote is very likely indeed.
We have a problem for Rowenna...Conservatives just outpolled Labour yesterday in Itchen wards
"I can't be backing Australia at 5-6 !"
Well, for The Ashes maybe.
Yes, hard not to like Kingston Hill, but I'll not be having a bet.
The problem is that outside London, their performance was poor, overall.
The only explanation is *either* their previous projection was too high or the current projection is too low.
If you are still there. Off topic.
I see Hillary is now strong favourite for the next POTUS election. Do your "connections"" indicate she is very likely to run?
What's your view on why Labour is so strong here compared to elsewhere?
I heard on twitter they were dancing in the streets of Lambeth.
London (rounding off)
Labour, -2
Con +3
LD 0
UKIP 0
Cornwall
Labour -7
LD -3
Con +9
UKIP 0
(Wiki happened to have breakdowns for those two).
So taking London and part of the south west and no adjustments whatsoever you can see a vague relationship.
You don't think clever people with more data and better adjustments than that could find an even better set of relationships? Swings across the country tend not to be totally independent of each other..
Hi StJohn. Nice to hear from you again.
Things have been a bit quiet over there for a while. I have a lot of money invested on her running and am watching developments keenly. As far as I am concerned the position remains as it has been for many months - if she's fit, she runs, and if she runs, she wins (the nomination certainly, the Presidency probably.) All my sources, when last consulted, indicated she is fit and will run. I'll post if I detect any change in the wind, but there has been none for ages.
My understanding is that she won't formally declare her hand until about January 2015, but of course there are always those - like Rove - that will try one way or another to pressure her into an early announcement. Maybe that pressure will make her break cover sooner but you can see why she would want to hold back if she can.
Hope that helps.
This is College: http://bit.ly/1icw5uY
You will note that he is wearing an Old Harrovian tie, whereas in his 21st Century reincarnation the tie changed to an Old Etonian version (worn by Farage in his TV debate with Clegg).
Some PBers, e.g. Stodge, believe the moniker "College" refers to Nige's former school, Dulwich College, but there is no connection with his renounced status as an Old Alleynian.
P.S. In the above pic, College seems to be wearing an OE tie (the photo is a bit blurry. The original model is clearer: http://bit.ly/1gqaLH7 - definitely OH).
Yes, the math is fine and I can't see them scoring less than 25%. They could conceivably score just over 35%, but the odds of them doing so would be (much) shorter than 2/5. So the bet works.
What I want to know is how you get Ladbrokes to take enough of your money to make betting at 2/5 worthwhile - at gunpoint?
This isn't some random thing, it's Oxford professors with a track record of making this kind of projections.
By all means discuss it, critique it etc. But for a political site that deals heavily in polling, stats, projections etc to just ignore it would seem pretty odd to me.
Lab 8,394 (32.25%)
Con 8,158 (31.34%)
UKIP 5,741 (22.06%)
Ind 1,468 (5.64%)
Green 1,388 (5.33%)
LD 705 (2.71%)
TUSC 174 (0.67%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
Lab -4.20%
Con -8.15%
UKIP +21.39%
Ind +3.37%
Green +2.10%
LD -10.80%
TUSC -0.83%
Swing, Con to Lab: 6.18%
Just think of it as a glottal stop.
Her eloquence will only be paused.
That's very helpful.
I haven't had a bet - but given that there are still some doubts about her certainty to run and also her current general ability, I think she represents very poor value to actually be the next POTUS, at current odds. So no bet for me.
Please keep us posted.
All the best.
For example if you have a ward where there are 3 Con, 3 Lab, 3 LD, 1 UKIP, 1 Green standing, you have to take just the highest vote otherwise you get an inflated result for the parties with 3 candidates.
Apparently people like Rallings & Thrasher use this method.
Bit more interesting on the Republican side. Have a look at Scott Walker, if you haven't already.
The best to you too.
For example, in 2005 the Lib Dems polled well and won all 6 Cornish MPs so they were coming down from something of a high water mark. Whereas London not so much.
What I want to know is how you get Ladbrokes to take enough of your money to make betting at 2/5 worthwhile - at gunpoint?
Peter. Shadsy is very fair and allows some bets to be placed at OK stakes.
Btw, if he reads this, his politicalbookie.wordpress.com blog highlighted by OGH recently, is the best recent development in political betting in ages. Well worth a read each day.
I got £53.86 at 15/8 and £58.66 at 13/8 to win approx £42 on either outcome - or lose £112!
(eight wards)
Con 41.2%
Lab 38.9%
UKIP 10.4%
LD 6.3%
Oth 3.2%
I do have a slight hope judging by some Labour people waking up and saying publicly that there needs to be a change, though. And I'm also hopeful that the penny might finally be dropping that the way to win over these types of working class/lower middle class supporters is absolutely NOT by embracing Tory economic policies. As I said earlier, I find it quite hard to believe that people are voting UKIP because they want so-called "economic credibility", when UKIP are pretty much the antithesis of "credibility". Nor do I believe people in grim Great Yarmouth which is suffering horribly economically, where there was one of the biggest Lab->UKIP swings compared to 2012, is desperately crying out for more spending cuts.
Shadsy fair!!!!! How very dare you????!!!!! If he reads that, he'll feel insulted.
Seriously, I couldn't agree more and would encourage any political punter to check it daily.
http://democracy.rochdale.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=94&RPID=1531032
Con 36.5%
Lab 34.6%
UKIP 12.9%
LD 8.1%
Oth 8.0%
http://bit.ly/1jFhCMt
And Sian Berry has been elected in Camden. And there's a Green party leadership election due this summer. Just saying.
UKIP did very well, they topped the polling in two councils, one of which was with, what, 29% of the vote and they got f all in most of London, Winchester, Manchester, Liverpool, Three Rivers, etc etc etc etc, and yet despite a great result, the kippers are bleating that the projected NATIONAL share isn't enough?
Grow up. They don't run any councils, they are opposition in hardly any, they topped ten vote counts in 2013 and afaik two today. Yeah, they are crap in London, it's not like the rest of the councils were 'poor areas' for them - their vote is evenly distributed outside London and Scotland. They got fewer councillors than the busted Lib Dems, yet a higher national share.
They are a party 'starting to register', to even pretend they are polling within 10-12% of either Red or Blue nationally in council elections is pathetic fantasy.
Stop projecting where you want them to be, and deal with where they are. And while you're at it, be proud of what they achieved, whilst the rest of us are disgusted by it.
'We' played really well on Saturday.
Did you go to the game?
No, I never go to the game.
Con 11,000 (38.68%)
Lab 6,326 (22.24%)
UKIP 6,243 (21.95%)
LD 3,374 (11.86%)
Green 1,318 (4.63%)
TUSC 177 (0.62%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
Con -13.31%
Lab +0.15%
UKIP +21.95%
LD -11.27%
Green +2.31%
TUSC +0.62%
Swing, Con to Lab: 6.73%
I think the 23% last time was too high quite honestly.
@dyedwoolie UKIP neither fills me with pride nor digusts me to be honest.
The Beeb quite clearly screwed up the vote shares in 2013, when UKIP were nowhere near being within 2% of the Tories nationally.
Yeah.
Con 17,018 (36.58%)
LD 10,985 (23.61%)
Lab 9,137 (19.64%)
UKIP 4,705 (10.11%)
Green 3,424 (7.36%)
Ind 1,241 (2.67%)
TUSC 14 (0.03%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
Con -5.45%
LD -14.63%
Lab +5.49%
UKIP +9.61%
Green +2.63%
Ind +2.64%
Lutfur Rahman has won !