Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GE2015 seat split based on the latest PaddyPower line b
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GE2015 seat split based on the latest PaddyPower line betting
What’s showing here are the buy levels for the three main parties on PaddyPower and as can be seen neither CON nor LAB would have a majority and would probably try to cobble together some deal to see themselves through.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Brown was behind on both seats and votes.
shadsy said:
Maths question: What should the true price be for there to be a dead heat in any one of the 650 constituencies at the general election?
I've tried to make an estimate and was surprised at the answer.
Exclude the safe seats, i.e. any where you expect a majority of >3000. For those where a maj <3000 is expected the chances of a dead heat assuming a 2 way contest would be about 1 in 1500. (If you expect a majority of <3000 party A could get any one of 6000 results. The chances of party B matching that exactly are 1 in 6000 but that ignores the fact that if A tends to an extreme that tends to push B away to the other extreme. So we focus on the bit in the middle.) So 1 in 1500 x [number of non safe constituencies].
I thought the Tories were strongly against turning "losers into winners".
If Dave has a Queen's Speech voted down, then Dave might have to visit the palace before Labour have put together arrangements that would put them over 325 seats
Shorter than one might at first think.
True odds perhaps 20-1, if I was a bookie perhaps offer 16s on it...
Obviously in reality with such a close result you would have multiple recounts etc. and potentially election petitions etc.
It is interesting that a combination of high employment and low wage growth isn't being reflected in government popularity... Maybe future governments will be tempted to do the opposite: encourage high wage growth even if that's at the expense of high unemployment... After all, the Tories won in 83 and 92 coming out of recessions with high unemployment...
On the question of low wage growth, this is partly the result of Gordon Brown's strategic genius... The changes to single parent and disability benefits pushed through by Brown has increased the supply of labour and is suppressing wages (plus the level of immigration too, of course)... Add in the minimum wage acting as a signal to employers what to pay unskilled workers..
So, genius by Brown to act 10 years or more ahead to undermine Tory hopes in 2015... Tax credits are having an effect too but I haven't worked that one out yet....
So in the last 4 general elections out of nearly 2,500 seats up for grabs.
1 out of 2,500.
(Worked out the average majority of all seats in 2010, found the standard deviation, assumed a normal distribution.)
Separately, someone on twitter asked me the odds of a Lab/Con dead heat in seat numbers at the election, and we've come up with 66/1.
Real odds are very long indeed, and would have to assume all recounts reached the same amount.
Seems highly unlikely in MP-sized constituencies.
John Rentoul is expecting a pretty much permanent cross over in the polls before the end of September. The average polls in recent months would look very different if the weekly outlier Labour leads of 5-7 are excluded.
CON 275
LAB 312
LIB 28
NAT 14
UKIP 3
I'm luring Shadsy into a trap with my irrefutable logic.
That isn't just a coalition, it's a minority coalition.
I can see a minority Gov't, or a coalition. Minority coalition - no chance.
Not even a 'De Facto' Majority coalition.
Labour lost nine seats in the Yorkshire/Humber region in 2010. Today, Ladbrokes are forecasting that they will regain just four of those at the next general election.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/the-4-seats-labour-are-forecast-to-gain-in-yorkshire/
Miliband won't do very well in West Yorkshire methinks.
However I think he gains Reading West down sarf to make up for it...
Britain's third party is looking forward to "crunch time" as it is poised to decide the make-up of the next Government.
However, while senior Conservatives described Mr Clegg's behaviour as "sordid", former Labour home secretary David Blunkett compared him with a "harlot".
"Can we trust the Liberal Democrats?" Mr Blunkett asked. "They’re behaving like every harlot in history."
Adding that the Conservatives were in a stronger position to form a stable Government, he urged his party's leadership to accept a period in opposition rather than an unworkable coalition.
"I don’t think it will bring stability, I think it will lead to a lack of legitimacy and I think it will make people think that we haven’t listened to them," he told the BBC.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/7709067/Liberal-Democrats-behaving-like-every-harlot-in-history-says-David-Blunkett.html
And that net four gain assumes they hold Great Grimsby and Rotherham.
I like Stuart Andrew, but I think he's doomed.
My guess is that Labour would seek to have a minority government. As the man in position that would require more cooperation from Cameron than he got from Brown in 2010.
I think it's probably over a million to one, but I'm not going to be taking any bets.
I'm inclined to think that's how it will turn out, but with the Conservative and Labour positions reversed.
That said if the odds were as low as 16-1 should we not have had at least 1 since the war?
Ed might quite like that, as a way to spike the demands of the left, in the same way as Dave uses the dems to spike the demands of the right
You can go plenty of attempts without a true 16-1 shot landing.
One or all of those posts are plausible given a LabLib coalition. How do you think the public would react to that?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17952237
2011 Ramsbottom too
IANAE but if the odds are truly 16-1 is there not a 50% chance of the result coming up in 16 goes? And since we have had more than 16 elections since the war (18 I think) there should be a better than 50% chance (not much but better) than not of it happening.
If you look at local elections where there are much smaller electorates it has happened but it seems to be vanishingly rare which also seem seriously inconsistent with 16-1.
If so, Dave will get a Falklands bounce.
Tory landslide in 2015 like in 1983?
Will you be leading the charge up Mount Tumbledown armed with a fruit knife having been transported there by Brittany Ferries?
It may have escaped your notice, but we are in a worse position than when Maggie gave the order, and even then it was a "damned close run thing"
I'll be the Max Hastings de nos jours.
Plus, I'd not be advocating infantry to retake The Falklands.
I'm advocating reducing our nuclear arsenal one at a time.
Well we have no shortage of generals who can give the orders, though we might be a little low on troops to die gloriously.
PB "Old Pals" brigade? (with the accent more on "Old"? :-)
It may have escaped your notice, but Argentina is bankrupt and is still using the same military stuff they had in the 80s.
Britain, however, has moved on and has amazing sh*t like HMS Dauntless, which can detect an Argentinian general f8rting at 4,000 miles. Also, state of the art subs. And euro fighters
Also, the Falklands now has an airstrip, which means we could fly all sorts of sh8t in there pronto if we needed it.
Which we won't.
As I say the rarity of ties in local election results suggests that your estimate of the risks of this occurring in any one election cycle must be pretty conservative.
You confidence marks you out as General Staff material, statements like that are usually followed by a "How the hell did that happen?" and a quick coverup (milk and two sugars, and follow those orders to the letter )
It is also true that the UK is wholly incapable of mounting a similar operation today, but then it will not need to. Argentina couldn't mount an invasion - their flagship (an ancient British Built Type 42 destroyer, sans all upgrades) sunk at its moorings a while back, FFS! . Probably the entire Argentine Air Force, well such of it that can actually take to the skies, could, without anyone breaking a sweat, be taken down by the half squadron of Typhoons that are stationed down there.
Of course, were Argentina able to put together a cunning plan to seize Mount Pleasant and so put troops on the ground then Cameron, or whoever the PM was at the time, would be destroyed - a bottle of whiskey and a revolver in the Library would be his best option. But that isn't likely.
If you want to worry about defence matters then think about the possibility of a freighter suddenly, and a out of a clear blue sky, exploding on the run into to Felixstowe.
Up here we tend to worry more about the blast containment around the nuclear subs when they return to port and unload the missiles.
Depending on what happens in September, it might be less of a concern.
If one party is ahead on seats, but behind on votes, the precedents are as follows:
1) An opposition party behind on seats but in a position to form a coalition by virtue of its mandate votes down the Speech from the Throne and therefore brings down the government after a delay (precedents, 1892 and 1924)
2) A governing party in the same situation has the right to remain in office if it can form a coalition (precedent, 1970).
No guarantee of course that civil servants (who are mostly economists or esoteric subject graduates rather than lawyers or historians) will know this, but that's the legal position.
Nice thought, unfortunately when you send some of that instant sunshine, you have broken the "MAD" convention and might just trigger a response from a nervous Russian commander.
:-)
https://711191d3-a-424b268b-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/stonybrook.edu/matthew-lebo/Lebo and Norpoth.2012.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7crayPiZF1ZzAe5_ja2Lst1Ci8fsT9I3995E_y1bW-W7-f-RmRD0pIJC7Aqel1FNBGh8N_NEe6NmnClq6WuMRnAIfjxbkTnR_qsrs5afZ2nvi6nxDI9JoskRmuYAfTBwPJkL3eibSe-j9Wie7lkGudC5tOL7WeyBwTJmR0EC7JPDiA07-6DGeNyWqjr2fFi196OltbAWKhFB7SGzwD_rCOA8IqvFwqtbSBhtQqqBxPYOBkn5NeQ=&attredirects=1
The key factor being leader ratings.
I wonder if that is what might actually be concerning the Argies down the line. I read the population of the falklands is rising and set to rise much more as it develops its natural resources. The land mass is about half the size of Wales.
We could put 20 euro fighters down there if we wanted. Or 50.
I also heard St. Helena is due to get an airstrip (from last night's commonwealth games). It occurred to me that might not be a total coincidence in this respect.
The army was raiding the regimental museums for heavy caliber machine guns, and the Bellgrano was sunk using Mk.VIII torpedoes because the latest high tech ones didn't work.
Our last discussion contained your rebuttal of the German trench defensive by wittering on about the "slaughter of the innocents". Where the German Army conclusively proved that marching troops in close formation toward defensive positions, in the teeth of rapid fire (in this case rifles) was a mugs game.
Our military geniuses were still trying the same tactic up till 10 minutes before the armistice.The first battle of Ypres, I forgot about it at the time because it was based on a myth, at least two thirds of the troops involved were regular or landwher, and they were singing as a form of recognition in the mist, the myth even gets the song wrong.
And of course he was popular at home - that's never been in dispute. But some right useless chancers have been popular at home due to propaganda (look at Zhukov, or Ulysses S. Grant, or for that matter George Washington) despite being unnecessarily brutal with their own men.
Ironically, given your reference to Haig, I've always thought of them as rather similar - possibly and indeed probably well-meaning, but too inclined to go for the grand gesture without getting all their support operations in order (we come back to 9th Armoured and Market Garden) and losing men needlessly as a result.
You were there? Tell me of your deeds dear boy.
Bloomberg is reporting that Argentinian US dollar bonds are plummeting because it defaulted on its debt yet again. Negotiations with bond holders who actually wanted to get paid the full dollar have collapsed, by the look of it.
Markets rattled. Stocks down.
Baldwin had a 67 seat lead over Labour in 1924. Salisbury's Unionists had a 40 seat lead in 1892. Heath was 5 seats behind in 1974 (whoops sorry, my misprint) but ahead on the popular vote, so only resigned on failing to form a government with the Liberals.
Operation "Goodwood" was tremendous fun though, unless you were in one of the attacking tanks.
Is surely the best historical parrallel to what might happen - Gladstone getting a majority of the vote whilst Disraeli won a majority of seats.
Disraeli became PM !
Let this be a lesson to me not to type too fast...
Now, tell me about this raiding of the regimental museums for HMGs during the Falklands campaign? That was my time so I am all agog, what on earth was going on that I missed?
1. The Conservative formed a majority government in 1970.
2. Precedents do not represent "legal positions".
3. The Queen may send for anyone who may form a majority in parliament. All other issues are mute.
That far back, popular vote isn't helpful as a guide because many seats were uncontested:
Disraeli won an outright majority, so there was no question of who would form a government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-28574356
Labour lose control in Calderdale.
Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Barkr.
Country that can't pay debts blames another country for pointing out it can't pay debts:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-28587653
Precedents do form legal positions - why do you suppose lawyers cite them all the time? Once a precedent is set, it is followed. Silliest example imaginable, but constitutional protocol mandated for centuries that only the Royal Standard is flown above Buck House. When, in 1997, the Union flag was flown at half mast to commemorate a certain person, it set a precedent and now the Union flag flies when the Queen is not in residence. As with flags, so with Parliament. In 1660 a precedent was set that the King should be barred from entering the Commons by force if necessary after unfortunate incidents involving his father - and that's still in force to this day.
The Queen cannot, in theory or practice send for anyone who may form a government, only somebody who can form a government. The last time a commission on the Crown's initiative had to be declined was Bonar Law in 1916, because even he accepted Lloyd George was the clear choice to be PM.
I've already apologised for my silly blunder over 1970/74.