Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why I am betting that the Conservatives have a better than
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why I am betting that the Conservatives have a better than 9pc chance of winning most votes at the 2014 Euros
Last week in a thread on which party would come out with most votes at next year’s Euro elections Richard Nabavi suggested that the best value bet was the 10/1 which is still available from Ladbrokes on the Conservatives.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That seems like a reasonable proposition - and if the Tories plans to get legislation on the books or at least a serious attempt at it before 2014 - it does spike Kipper guns somewhat.
"Labour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.
In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.
He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work. By contrast, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party got it wrong on immigration but has refused to admit it was too high under Labour.
Between 1997 and 2010, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2million, more than twice the population of Birmingham. The annual net figure quadrupled under Labour from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009.
Lord Mandelson’s remarks come three years after Labour officials denied claims by former adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-to-come--hard-Britons-work-says-Mandelson.html#ixzz2TFAfPTTN
Scepticism about the benefits system has increased more among Labour voters than Tories in recent years, a major survey found yesterday.
Nearly half of Labour supporters, 46 per cent, think benefit cuts would encourage claimants to ‘stand on their feet’ and find work. That compares to the 16 per cent who favoured cuts in 1987 when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister.
And it is more than the 43 per cent of Conservative voters who believed in 1989 that if benefits were less generous more people would provide for themselves.
Now, 68 per cent of Tories think benefits are too high and encourage dependency.
In 1989, 46 per cent of Labour supporters thought social injustice was the main cause of poverty. By 2010, despite the recession, only 27 per cent did.
The plunging support for the benefits system emerged in a survey for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. It said in a report that the gap on welfare between Tory and Labour supporters is narrowing.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324116/Labours-supporters-rejecting-benefits-culture-faster-Tories-nearly-half-thinking-cuts-encourage-people-stand-feet.html#ixzz2TFC96WdL
the idea thatukip performance as councillors is relevant. Correct me if im wrong but they haven't won control anywhere so they will have continued licence to carry on whinging e
without doing. This appears to hit their voter demographic perfectly.
It's not about Europe, never really was. A withdrawal from Europe doesn't change it's purpose. It's about culture, group identification and fear of change.
You could move the UK to a EFTA position tomorrow and not change it's purpose.
Today's YouGov with changes on 2 weeks ago. Ukip are up from an average of 11 over March and April. Remember when Labour used to regularly poll 42 or 43?
Con 31 (+1)
Lab 38 (-1)
Ukip 14 (--)
LD 10 (-1)
Oth 7 (--)
How HMG are perceived as doing will have an impact - the EU ref question will hopefully have been resolved by then, so those who feel we need to repatriate some powers will feel somewhat reassured and the rest of the population ditto if things carry on picking up.
Hardcore Kippers won't care a jot what the Tories say - or Labour, a % of the NOTA voters can be brought home to their former parties - its all to play for and I can't wait for the fun and games :^ )
Latest YouGov / The Sun results 13th May - CON 31%, LAB 38%, LD 10%, UKIP 14%; APP -33
EU (vs 3days ago)
Stay: 34(+4)
Leave: 44(-3)
Post Cameron renegotiation:
Stay: 45(=)
Leave: 33(+1)
However, the Pavlovian reaction of the average Conservative MP when the subject of the EU is raised (to dribble and to bark crazily) means that this is not a bet for the fainthearted.
And as ever you cannot point to any UK specific evidence that mass immigration has made us better off. If immigration makes us all richer why has the economy been stagnant for a decade ?
I have heard that it is run well, but that may just be hearsay.
http://www.bloggers4ukip.org.uk/2012/11/ukip-ramsey-in-financial-times.html
2010 vote:
Con: 17
Lab: 9
LibD: 15
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/tb4puhe9cy/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-130513.pdf
Hard to see anyone but UKIP topping that poll, I think. Good luck with the bets, though.
Imagine if we did leave the EU, and it went perfectly smoothly. Would the Conservatives calm down a bit? Find something else to be pathologically fixated upon?
I think we should leave, but the approach of some to the matter (now. RIGHT NOW! I know we said that your speech promising a referendum was enough but that was 2 months ago) is as if they've been consumed by their id.
Europe is only a (vague) perception in peoples' minds - it's not as though Europe has moved in three doors down and is playing loud music. If pressed I bet 96% of people couldn't name one thing they dislike about our membeship (there is plenty not to like but nothing "sexy"). So trying to allay such nebulous fears is doomed not to succeed.
It also gives the petty, small-minded, solipsistic Cons backbenchers a day in the sun and that is irritating as hell.
Also, if the tyres are hardened that could mean more advantage for Red Bull, but could also increase the hope of Hamilton finishing top 3, perhaps.
The 1999 Euros were interesting because, for the first time, people began voting about the EU, rather than treating them as a mid-term referendum on the government.
I think UKIP will top the poll next year, because I don't think the public are particularly interested in scrutinising them at this point (they will do, as the General Election approaches).
In the real world didn't Mandelson just admit New Labour betrayed their voters as a matter of policy or am i missing something?
Govts always encourage immigration to fill labour shortages.
This govt is doing it now, for example"
So we have a labour shortage ?
I take it you wont be highlighting the increase in unemployment to be announced this week.
Just when Labour's wobbling, the economic signs are all turning positive etc etc
It would seem all 3 parties would rather be in opposition these days. Life must be much easier there if you are an MP who isn't ever going to be in Government.
I'm not bothered about the micro-details or what political pundits say about it being whatever the hyperbole de jour is - it needed sorting and hopefully that's now at least being addressed.
TBH, Labour has a much bigger issue on its hands by a long chalk, EdM said only a few weeks ago that he was against a referendum at all...
More immigrants encourages that trend, whether the German workers approve is another matter.
I don't know what effect that had on German productivity but its clearly had a negative one in the UK.
Though I do find it curious that the PB lefties now support downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on living costs.
At what point did reducing economic and social mobility and increasing inequalities in society become fashionable in left wing circles ?
Don't forget either that we also have the best universities in the world.
Scumbag University in the London Borough of Shitsville is renowed for the quality of its media studies graduates.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22512160
...If John Baron predicted that this would be the Prime Minister's response to his amendment to the Queen's Speech, then hats off to him. As I blogged last week, this is exactly the move that Cameron should make.
Some critics (David Aaronovitch, John Rentoul, etc) have objected that this move is pointless because (a) Cameron won't be able to get it through the House of Commons and (b) no Parliament can bind its successor. That's a tad literal-minded of them. Okay, it might not pass, but in the event of it being defeated the Conservatives will come out smelling of roses. If the Lib Dems vote against it, they'll look like hyprocrites – an EU referendum was in their 2010 manifesto, after all. And if Labour vote against it, they'll look like they don't think the British public should have a say on this important matter. Unlikely to be a vote winner, given that confidence in our elected representatives is at an all time low.
My colleague Iain Martin has dismissed this move as "game playing" and "contemptible politics". If there's no chance of this Bill being passed, why waste time on it, given that there are much more important things the next Parliament should be getting on with? Well, that's politics, I'm afraid, and there's no such thing as respectable politics. And the claim that this is a distraction at a time when the government should be focusing on economic growth – the Labour line being put out this evening – is itself just… politics.
The real question is whether this move succeeds in putting Labour and the Lib Dems on the back foot. We shall see, but I think it will. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100216756/getting-behind-a-referendum-bill-is-a-smart-move-on-camerons-part/
"If I was masterminding the in case I would start by reminding farmers where there subsidies come from."
None of the many farmers I know like CAP or subsidises - they want to return to running a family business and making a living from it not filling in forms and getting handouts. In my final stint working at the Rural Payments Agency - we sent farmers 999 pages of guidance and rules about how to fill in claim forms. Now what does that say about the system?
The lack of understanding by those who think *farmers* are all Brian Alridge Range Rover Vogue types speaks volumes.
What will you suggest at that point ? Let me guess - yet more immigrants.
A human ponzi scheme.
An ageing population and more pensioners is inevitable and at some point has to be dealt with. That point can be postponed but postponing problems usually tends to make them worse in the long run.
Will no one think of the children etc.
RC appears to be little more than a parish council. I'd be wary of extrapolating competence from that (withough commenting on whether competence is being shown).
I look forward to your views on "anecdotes" as always. What about this one:
"This Government are taking away people’s security and piece of mind and causing worry and anxiety. And I’ve heard anecdotally that the suicide rate is increasing." - Andy Burnham
Andy "slowlane" Burnham, proof that evolution can go backwards.
The latest polls are a good example of the importance of "salience". The Tories thrashing about on Europe is making the issue look extremely important, which damages them (because Cameron isn't willing to go all the way with the sceptics) and also Labour (because it's not an issue where Labour traditionally wins votes). In the same way, a major NHS issue tends to help Labour and a major military issue tends to help the Tories, even if the particular development isn't helpful - people focus on the current headlines and think "which party do I reckon is best in this area?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10055149/Lord-Ahmed-quits-Labour-party-days-before-hearing.html
Now who blames the media and 'Jews'
"...Nobody can speak for everybody – at least, not at the same time.
Political parties have now abandoned their quasi-official connections with particular interests or classes. They present themselves instead as the embodiments of philosophies of government (sometimes known as ideologies). But the break with the old system is not clean. The philosophy of low-tax/small-government tends to be seen as inextricably bound up with those who are better-off and thus more self-sufficient, and its big-state/high-tax alternative as being more concerned with the disadvantaged who need help. The task of almost all the political disputation of our time has been to persuade the electorate that these associations are not inevitable. Thus, Right-of-centre parties argue that small government and low taxes spread prosperity and enable poorer people to become independent, while Left-of-centre ones assert that only government redistribution of wealth can ensure the social stability that benefits everyone, even the more affluent.
All political leaders must now claim to represent entire populations, and they do this by arguing that their party’s beliefs will inevitably benefit every group in the country. This is, of course, not true. At least, it isn’t true in any permanent sense. No philosophy of government is the eternal answer to the question of how life can be made better because the question itself changes through time. In 1945, the question, and thus the winning answer, was different from the one that dominated the national consciousness in 1979.
So where does this leave the party leaders who are trying to persuade us that they speak for the whole nation? The party that succeeds in any given generation is the one that convinces us that its philosophy or moral precepts – even if they spring from a particular class or cultural background – are universally applicable. Labour won the post-war argument with its socialist prospectus because the solidarity of war-time seemed to lead naturally into a state-run cooperative economy. The Conservatives took the country in 1979 because the power of the trades unions appeared blatantly unjust to most people. In both cases, the political messages – which had grown out of specific class or sectional roots – were turned into visions with which great numbers of voters who did not share those roots, could identify. And that, in brief, is the way modern elections are won." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10050593/No-party-can-truly-speak-for-everyone.html
Have you got slings and arrows ready to repel them. JackW?
"Although Major managed to win a majority, which hapless Dave couldn't "
As you know full well, the reason Cameron isn't PM of a Conservative government is the bias in FPTP against them on 36% of the vote - 2005/2010 GE's refer.
And the Ukip share in the ICM... wow.
Labour nowhere near where they need to be.
Germany lost 3-4 million men in the war and thus had a massive labour shortage.
The UK has been in the EEC (now EU) for 40 years. This govt has been in power for 3. Total progress on 'reform from inside'? Approximately zero? And yet Cameron expects us to believe that he is capable of derailing their main objective: ever greater union? When he has publicly stated that he wants to stay in, thus shafting his own negotiating position before he starts?
Labour did something about it, while the Tories just complain to a ref that isn't there.
Your point is?
Labour try doing it using the Bankers Bonus Tax that's already been spent 7x over, UKIP appear to be trying the same re not spending £50m a day on Brussels... neither are very convincing on closer inspection.
Crikey, much more of this and Farage and UKIP will be begging for mercy.
Just look at the damage the other parties are taking while Cammie shows the voters his bold vision of making the tory party run about like headless chickens. Remember the bleeding obvious - nobody can speak for everybody unless they are a serial labour voting floating voter with a fiscal conservative twist who spins for Cammie.
Cripes! ;^ )
Matthew Parris
@MatthewParris3
Is my party going mad? What can I say on The Daily Politics today? Psychiatrist needed, not political commentator.
So far we have Toby Young who disagrees.
When is he ever wrong? *chortle*
Yes of course, Marches, nobody should extrapolate too far from the example of one small council. I never suggested otherwise. All I was pointing out was that UKIP do run a council somewhere in these Isles and by all accounts they do so well.
I have no dog in this fight. I am not a UKIP voter and never likely to be.
I'd agree with Mr Hodges until he gets to Paras 9 onwards - then he loses his way. That it took until then to get to his point is a bit odd - I presume like Andrew Rawnsley et al he is very good at Labour politics and dropping a shoe trying to grasp the Tories. Very few commentators *get* the Party they don't naturally agree with.
In fact, I can't think of any that do...
Whilst I fully understand Labour don't do numbers the FACTS from the election numbers are clear :
2005 - Lab 35.2% - 355 seats .. Con 31.7% - 198 seats
2010 - Con 36.1% - 306 seats .. Lab 29% - 258 seats
It has nothing to do with "whining" or the lead that Cameron enjoyed in the polls or the respective strategies of the parties but simply the in built bias enjoyed by Labour at certain levels of support with FPTP - Cameron outpolled Blair's 2005 % score but rather than having a comfortable majority Cameron leads a Coalition government.
This utter denial by many (although far from all) on the left over what happened at Stafford is perhaps the most sickening aspect of recent politics. Instead of hanging heads in shame, they try to pretend that nothing bad happened there, or divert the topic using "look:squirrel" tactics. See above for an example.
Anyone who finds what went on at Stafford in any way acceptable, or tries to use the 'only one death' lie, or say that it was just poor practice, should really clear out their compassion filter.
And before anyone accuses me of bias, I've said all along that it'll happen again, simply because most of the recommendations in the report will get kicked into the long grass, and because of institutional and political resistance to the necessary change.