Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Stephen Fisher’s latest GE15 forecast is right LAB coul
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Stephen Fisher’s latest GE15 forecast is right LAB could win most seats with just 31.3% of the vote
We’ve been here before and we’ll be here many times in the next six months – the way that on national vote shares at least the “system” seems to favour LAB so much.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Bobby Sol may have cost me nearly £300.
From Yesterday
Football betting tip.
Backing Spurs to win against City tomorrow.
However Spurs got the dockside hooker treatment when they played the big sides last year.
So also had a punt on there being over 5.5 goals at 9/1.
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/man-city-v-tottenham/total-goals
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/438566/#Comment_438566
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2FCyhBO_gs
According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the Conservatives.
current-Labour
Conservative Party: +4% / -76% (-72)
UKIP: +12% / -58% (-46)
2010 Labour
Conservative Party: +8% / -71% (-63)
UKIP: +18% / -55% (-37)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
Hadn't see your post from y'day.... 4-1 is progress for Spurs...
ComRes have a good question on this tonight/tomorrow.
"We have also repeated a question from two years ago asking people what other parties they would “seriously consider” voting for, apart from their first choice."
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/10/18/poll-alert-48/
We now know that such an outcome, as he espouses above, is not going to happen.
If Mike Smithson thinks it will, I'll bet him £100 even it wont.
Aguero = Carswell
Bobby Sol = Reckless
FWIW, If the Tories couldn't form a majority government even with LD or UKIP support, I'd expect Cameron to resign as PM but that's a different matter.
The question was
Please indicate whether you have a favourable or unfavourable view of each of the following.
Now I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party.
This is why the Ipsos-Mori questions are much superior to ComRes' questions on this topic.
The point is that current-Labour supporters would be more likely to vote UKIP than Conservative, in a perceived Con vs UKIP marginal.
Even your blinkered interpretation supports that.
I say you can't interpret the question/data that way, as the question was asking something else.
" I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party."
If that is right, the odds of NOM [No Overall Majority] should be about 8/11. Betfair has it about evens.
Bit of a bargain, if Fisher is right.
I make them favorites to hold Brighton, and in with a shout in at least two others.
Labour supporters may back the Tories to stop UKIP getting in, I think they may very well, the way other pollsters seem to back up the views that Labour supporters view Kippers and their candidates as being racist/more offensive than other candidates.
Also the voters think UKIP are the most extreme and least fit to govern party, including Labour supporters.
Hopefully the Lord A poll on Lab held seats in Scotland will tell us more soon.
We have asked people how they intend to vote, and carried out an experiment to test the effect of prompting for UKIP. Survation is the only pollster that reminds respondents about UKIP in its standard voting-intention question.
This produces higher scores for the party (on Sunday Survation put UKIP on 25 per cent – the average of other pollsters is 16 per cent), but most pollsters think that the unprompted score has been more accurate in the past. We wanted to find out how much difference the prompt makes.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/10/18/poll-alert-48/
You are suggesting that Labour voters like UKIP because they damage the Conservative Party, but that they would vote Conservative rather than UKIP?
Tosh.
Regardless. ComRes will be asking a specific "what other parties they would “seriously consider” voting for, apart from their first choice" in their poll this evening.
------
There has not been any poll that asked voters how "extreme" they thought each party was, so there is no comparable data. A poll that just asks if 'UKIP are extreme" is of no use in a "would labour voters support Con vs UKIP question."
Yes, STV is a bit manipulable (if you are daft enough to leave the boundaries to the politicians). The famous "Tullymander" in Ireland was such an attempt. Draw odd-numbered constituencies (3-seaters) where you are strong and even-numbered (4-seaters) where you are weak. The object being to "lose" nowhere! [you either win 2-1 or draw 2-2] It backfired actually, when the swing against Tully's party was greater than expected.
PR^2 would avoid this, while having a similar constituency structure to STV, as the national vote totals are what count under the system. The Boundary Commission could get on with the job of designing constituencies which better reflect actual communities, and the relatively uncontroversial question of whether Liverpool deserves 4 or 5 seats, etc., safe in the knowledge that their decisions could have no bearing on the national outcome with respect to parties. Electoral Bias would be removed, tactical voting should cease [no reason to vote tactically], Labour (and others) would need to get their votes out from Lands End to John'O'Groats, and there could even be a little bit of flexibility on the question of malapportionment (keeping the island constituencies and perhaps one or two others as over/underrepresented single-member) since it won't alter the overall result.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/22/the-polling-says-ukip-are-the-most-extreme-and-the-least-fit-to-govern-party/
Does it hurt to be always this wrong?
Next election remains very hard to call. Whilst UKIP's on the up, they should beware Nemesis.
FWIW, David Herdson is correct. Whichever of the big two Parties has the nerve to put PR into their manifesto will be the game changer (but neither will I suspect). Welcome to fruit machine politics! Multi party democracy with FPTP.
Should do it.
That's how constitutional precedent is set in this country.
On the more relevant question: which way would they vote? We'll have to wait for ComRes' poll this evening: 'what other parties they would “seriously consider” voting for, apart from their first choice'
or thinks that Conservative voters would vote Labour in a seat only Labour or UKIP can win
In other words, would rather their preferred party was not in power nationally than vote UKIP
...is utterly insane and I very much doubt there are enough of them to worry about factoring in to any betting considerations
If you live in Thurrock and want David Cameron as PM, you vote UKIP
If you live in Thanet South and want Ed Miliband as PM you vote UKIP
Here's the reality:
Some Labour supporters prefer UKIP over the Conservatives
Some Labour supporters prefer the Conservatives over UKIP
Some Conservative supporters prefer UKIP over Labour
Some Conservative supporters prefer Labour over UKIP
Some UKIP supporters prefer the Labour over the Conservatives
Some UKIP supporters prefer the Conservatives over Labour.
The varying percentages will be influenced by various factors including political views, socioeconomic background and geographic location.
(For all you confused normal people out there I am talking classic 2000AD characters)
Well, she's hardly likely to send for her mate Dave, if she can avoid it.
Those weekly meetings must a tad awkward these days.
He does try doesn't he? I suspect a much larger group of Tories will vote UKIP in the north to stop Labour (and if seats can be won on less than 30% we could see some UKIP shocks there) and a much larger group of Labour voters down south will vote UKIP to stop the Tories and their bedfellows the Libdems.
Whats clear is that in the seats that matter, the Lab-Tory marginals, a tactical vote against UKIP will also be a vote against a voter's party of preference. However, elesewhere, particularly where UKIP are challenging the Tories given how the Tories have banged on and on and on about the puerile 'Vote UKIP get Labour' mantra, I'm sure most Labour activists and voters will have got the message loud and clear and will act accordingly where appropriate.
Cant believe more wasn't made of his ungentlemanly goofs... can you IMAGINE if it were Ed???
Labour should be making more of that, not synthetic outrage about Lord Freud
I was referring to the daughter of Nyx.
Can't be both
examples
Sefton PR^2 constituency (3 seats) 2010, quotas
Con 1.07
Lab 1.55
LD 1.13
Three parties all have a quota, so all seats are filled, 1 for each party. If these parties ran more than one candidate, the second preferences of voters for eliminated parties could come into play to decide which would be elected. 1 seat would be deducted from the national totals for the three parties.
Bolton PR^2 constituency (3 seats) 2010, quotas
Con 1.35
Lab 1.75
LD 0.62
Two parties have a quota, with one seat indeterminate at this point. After comparing the relative performance of the parties across constituencies, Labour would probably get a second seat. Proceed with 1,2,3 to discriminate between candidates, as necessary.
Note that the Tories would win seats in areas they didn't under FPTP, and there would be counter-examples for Labour.
Taking England 2010 as an example.
Entitlement PR^2
Con 283
Lab 142
LD 106
UKIP 2
Quotas obtained across the constituencies (seats remaining to be assigned)
Con 184 (99)
Lab 106 (36)
LD 52 (54)
UKIP 0 (2)
To assign the remainders you could start with the smallest party (UKIP) and scan the (unfilled) constituencies to find its two best results, giving it seats there, and so on in order of size. Or you could use Buhagiar's Priority Queue, or some other method...
The PR^2 would be performed separately in the 4 nations, giving an overall UK (2010) result of:-
Con 302 (inc. 2 UCUNF)
Lab 201
LD 119
SNP 8
SF 7
DUP 6
SDLP 3
PC 2
UKIP 2
I hope you can see from my examples that the implementation of PR^2 I have designed is intended to avoid:-
i) two classes of MP, constituency and list (top-ups)
ii) the confusing 2 votes, one for the constituency, one for the list
iii) lists altogether
although it would be perfectly possible to have a PR^2 system which included these, or a list only system (shudder), or various other electoral paraphernalia...
Unsurprising in many ways as he has nothing worth listening to on virtually every other area but what a demonstration of the Misfit's impotency. I'd long though that it would be the Tories on the run at the next election but if this keeps up I can see UKIp making major inroads into Labour's core seats. The NHS may be somewhat of a sacred cow but after the likes of Mid Staffs it's clear that the poor beast may well have contracted BSE. The NHS is not the issue for the Misfit to bet the House on. I don't think any single issue is this time around.......
In fact, Fisher is being positively a Labour supporter suggesting the chance of a Tory majority at 19% whereas Rod Crosby has no such qualms. He puts Tory chances at 99.99%. The 0.01% fell off when the 293,876,321st simulation failed when the lights went out !
Con voters:
Extreme:
Lab: 18
UKIP: 65
Fit to Govern
Lab: 18
UKIP: 9
Lab Voters
Extreme:
Con: 37
UKIP: 84
Fit to Govern
Con: 35
UKIP: 9
They're really going to vote tactically for a party they consider 'extreme' and not 'fit to govern'?
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/political-monitor-sep-2014-party-image-tables.pdf
There's plenty of precedent for that kind of thing. Apparently Queen Victoria couldn't stand Gladstone. 'He addresses me like a public meeting' she was apparently heard to complain.
Not that Dave is any way comparable to Gladstone.
Final Polls October 2012>Now
#Yougov 44% now 32%
#Mori 43% now 33%
#Opinium 41% now 35%
#ICM 43% now 35%
The Queen deals every day with people who are over-excited or who behave gauchely when they meet her or who have something to do with her.
on topic (?):
I am pretty politically geeky (yes, really) and I have no idea what the relative state of the parties is in my constituency. I seriously think that the whole issue/phenomenon of "tactical voting" is hugely overstated.
Oh well, that's allright then Topping. Sure Her Maj is just fine with it. Btw, did she tell you so personally or is it something you just picked up from connexions?
He didn't act 'gauchely'. He relayed details of conversations she was entitled to think were private. Most of us can understand how that feels.
L&N freely admit that their seat probability model is less certain than the main thing - the vote lead probability. They don't try to model third-party seats for instance, and in 2015 that piece of the jigsaw could be even more crucial than before.
You will note that I serve these predictions up without comment, and offer others for comparison. The salient point, surely, is that they all show the Tories performing better than the current polls, and almost all have them winning the popular vote.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlabgap.html#tactical
Dave seems to have been no different which is a phenomenon I have noticed with people who you would have bet would have been as cool as you like.
As I said, he was intoxicated by his place at the top table and that he was walking along with Mike B. It was gauche and crass but nothing the Queen hasn't seen happen many many times.
Perhaps the circumstances in which Ukip would prosper most would be if Labour won in 2015. With continuing EU immigration and a Miliband government having to make significant cuts, Ukip would have a chance of breaking through in Labour’s northern heartlands. At the same time, any post-Cameron Tory leader would come under pressure to offer Ukip some kind of accommodation in an attempt to ‘reunite the right’.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/9343412/ukip-is-here-to-stay-especially-if-labour-wins/
12 Others couldn't be more than 10 SNP at the absolute outside and I suspect the model would say 6-8. That means that Labour must have won a minimum of 30 more than the Tories north of the border given that the Lib Dems must have lost some there (though if the Lib Dems were involved in supporting Labour, that would simply add weight to the argument).
So while relatively few people tactically vote (maybe 10%), the effects can be disproportionately large under bonkers FPTP.
Senex would have to post a comment here.
Who knows (party high-ups) but how is it communicated both to the canvassers, door-knockers and the voters themselves? Have you ever seen any literature advocating tactical voting? Or does it all happen on the doorstep which I find difficult to picture.
Which is a shame as you always seemed quite acute on things.
We all bring here our various experiences in the world, whether it be sci-fi novels, the British Railway system, or our television preferences.
I, likewise, bring my experiences.
They seemed such trivial incidents at the time, yet on reflection you wonder what the repercussions might be. Quite apart from the obvious embarrassment, she is bound to think that anything she says to him cannot be treated as confidential. Doesn't that affect her openness in those weekly meetings? And what about successive PMs? Is she going to think Dave was just a one-off and that she shouldn't assume others will be just as loose-lipped?
If she can't feel confident that her private meetings with the PM are indeed private, do they serve any purpose? Is it perhaps not time to scrap this centuries old tradition? That would suit Republicans, I think, who might wonder why she is getting involved at all, but would it suit those of us who like to think a sensitive and intelligent Monarch can play a useful part in the governance of the country, even now?
Strange how a little loose talk can lead one down some unexpected paths.
Congratulations to Rishi Sunak, the new Tory candidate for Richmond [Wm Hague's seat]
Thanks to taking the time for the explanation. I think you missed a bit about explaining where the quotas come from, but I assume this is from the national vote totals.
While your system is very clever and sorts most issues, I would worry that it is so complicated to calculate, it would seem like a Byzantine web to all but the most intelligent members of the electorate. I can imagine all sorts of complaints about how X party got a third of the vote in a constituency but lost out because an unallocated remainder from Y party got assigned to their constituency. Given that we're living in an age of alienation from politics anyway, that could be damaging.
http://www.rishisunak.com/
Yes of course you are right but in this instance I think there is some slack as it wasn't egregious and it conveyed the mood more than was a betrayal of confidences so might be put in the 'happens all the time' category.
As Bob Hope said to me...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0PcmCXIgAAXV8q.jpg:large
He'd fit in perfectly here. :-)
I am also unclear as to the mechanics of a "tactical voting" strategy by the various wards. It's not that easy a) to contact all those targets with a clear, unambiguous message; or b) to make it explicit that you are advocating voting for a party that is not the one you support and have been campaigning for support.
It is the mechanics that I am interested in. "Word of mouth" somehow doesn't seem sufficiently sophisticated.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dmv27pn9yn/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-161014.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_election_results_in_Scotland
I know Labour supporters did that in some places to keep out the BNP. however again. Holding your nose and voting Tory to keep out Neonazis is one thing, holding your nose and voting Tory to keep out a party thats on the same spectrum as the Tories but not full of upper class twits is another.
Hence I think the tactical voting will not be so apparent as previous elections for the following reasons:
1) Many Lab Voters who voted Libdem to keep the Tories out won't because they are in coalition with the Tories and voting Libdem didn't keep the Tories out.
2) Many Libdem voters who voted Labour to keep the Tories out won't because they don't want Labour ruining everything the Libdems sacrificed so much to achieve.
3) Green voters who voted Libdem due to keep the Tories out won't because it didn't keep the Tories out and in any case there is a Green Party candidate this time which there wasn't in 2010.
4) BNP voters will vote UKIP. Most of them were a bit uncomfortable with how right wing the BNP were anyway but held their nose because anything was better than Liblabcon.
5) Millions of voters who have stayed at home since 1992 as they have felt disenfranchised because the Conservative party is no longer Conservative will vote UKIP.
6) Millions of voters who have stayed at home since 2005 or even 1983, as they have felt disenfranchised because the Labour party has been taken over by loony left metrosexual middle class minoritymongers will vote UKIP.
7) New Labour voters won't bother to vote.
8) With so many parties getting serious amounts of votes, its far less obvious how tactical voting will play out, so you might as well vote for the party you actually support.
In the simulations, parties which come close to a full quota (including their remainders) tend to get their remainder seats allocated to these constituencies, so in the vast majority of seats a sensible looking result is obtained.
In a handful however, something is not quite "right". Perhaps the 4th party gets a seat while the third doesn't, etc. The justification for this is that the big picture is fair to all parties and voters, and if the third party had obtained a quota if would have been guaranteed a seat, votes for the third party still counted in determining its number of MPs, and the only reason they didn't get a seat locally was because another constituency had a "better" claim to a seat under some unbiased algorithm.
No electoral system can be perfect, and such things occur under FPTP regularly without much comment. e.g. LDs "winning" Oxford but winning neither seat; "winning" Bristol but coming away with 1 seat out of 4; Scottish LDs 19%, 11 seats, SNP 20%, 6 seats, etc...
Most electoral systems are "too complicated" for the voters. One might even add FPTP to the list! The systems in Denmark, Austria and plenty of other places are even more intricate than PR^2, although there is general voter satisfaction with them. The voters understand that every vote is treated equally, every vote counts, you can vote honestly, and *shock horror* you might actually get an MP you voted for, with some intra-party choice available. How that is actually achieved remains a blessed mystery to 99.9%, I suspect...
PR^2 falls into this category. Voter instruction could be as follows.
Vote for your desired party and its candidate of your choice.
Your vote will always contribute to your party's national seat total, and will also help elect your chosen candidate (or another of the same party) as a local MP.
[there could be some optional stuff about the 1,2,3 along the lines of: if your preferred party is unsuccessful locally, your further preferences will help determine which of the other candidates from other parties get elected, and will help decide what kind of government coalition is preferred, if the need arises]
This suggests not:
Lab Voters think the party is extreme:
Con:,37
Lab: 84
Its working!!
Any polls expected tonight? I've been out so am just wondering.