Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Extraordinarily both CON and LAB fall to new lows on the Be
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Extraordinarily both CON and LAB fall to new lows on the Betfair GE2015 market AT THE SAME TIME
The two charts above represent betting developments that have never happened before. Both the chances of a CON and a LAB majority at GE15 on the betting exchange have moved to new lows together.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04plxjz/south-east-today-the-battle-for-rochester-and-strood
Poor old unpopular Mr Farage will simply have to get by on a 'base' comprising the English and Welsh people minus the establishment.
Perhaps he'll struggle on..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/11222272/Nigel-Farage-to-be-interviewed-by-Goggleboxs-posh-couple.html
"The new programme, At Home with Dom and Steph, will be based in Mr and Mrs Parker's bed and breakfast in Kent, in the constituency of South Thanet where Farage will be standing in his bid to become an MP in the 2015 General Election."
"The couple rose to fame on Gogglebox, the cult series which features members of the public commentating on television from their own sofas"
It's tempting to say thay neither of the main parties looks good enough to get a majority, but absent a huge UKIP breakthrough in seats you don't need to be good to get a majority. You just need to be less bad than the other guy.
My only concern is if UKIP gain traction post-Rochester, but I think minds and hearts will be turning to Christmas, not politics.
Which way it may ultimately swing is still up for grabs.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/gogglebox-the-most-humanising-show-on-tv/16150#.VGGsQ8lFCBY
I have found it interesting, when on my rare forays into the world of TV.
Having Nigel interviewed by the gay couple in Brighton may have been more interesting, or the pair of Brixton ladies!
So if we compare the situation in late 2014 to the situation in 2012, then it's pretty clear that the probability of a hung Parliament is now greater, and as UKIP strengthens and the number of seats they are likely to win increases, then that will only increase the chance of a hung Parliament.
I think I see what you are arguing - that by making individual seat results more unpredictable UKIP will increase the size of the tails of the probability distribution for seats won - but I actually don't agree. The number of marginal seats involved is large enough that random effects are likely to broadly cancel out, and so the effect of an increasing number of UKIP MPs will be more important.
“Another hung parliament is looking even more likely”
Indeed. – It would be interesting to see a UK map of Betfair punters to see how opinions differ by region and where the betting hotspots are. – No doubt Bedford would figure quite strongly.
As antifrank posted yesterday, it's table 4 in this poll that provides the most sobering evidence for Labour:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ANP-summary-1411102.pdf
On a forced choice Cameron/Conservatives beat Miliband/Labour 49% to 38% amongst all voters, and 53% to 36% amongst swing voters. For UKIP voters, the split is 55% to 31%. Further, Table 3 shows that if it can be made into a duel in the marginals it'll be a "head" (Conservative) vs. "heart" (Labour) contest.
Why does that matter?
Table 2 shows that 50% of voters are yet to make up their minds.
The Conservatives winning a majority looks like a non-starter to me.
We could very well be looking at an election result where they poll worse (under Miliband) than Brown. Meanwhile, if the election can be framed as a choice between two Prime Ministerial candidates, one of whom is totally unpalatable to the electorate, we could see a 1992-style result all over again: swing voters turning out in droves to stop Miliband.
You mustn't be too myopic about the current headline poll numbers. Look at the fundamentals.
The question is whether the current betting odds are value. I think they are.
Question is, will UKIP take more seats from the at Tories than the SNP can take from Labour. Labour also faces a similar threat from UKIP but not as 1/2 as much as the Tories. Given that Tories are like hens teeth in Scotland already I think on balmace Labour are probably under more threat in these scenarios mainly because of SNP rather than UKIP.
Did I mention the Greens?
Um, except Nigel Farage is very popular for a politician, with more approving of him and less disapproving him than any other leader.
It won't happen and I'm sticking with my 35-25-23, and the SNP to out-poll the LibDems. The only seat predictions I'll make are for Cameron to hold Witney, UKIP to hold its seats and the Greens to hold the Pavilion...
If I was betting I think the value would be in laying a Labour majority rather than backing a Hung Parliament, though. Miliband + SNP + UKIP = Feck all chance of a Labour majority in my view.
The Conservatives start from a position close enough to a majority, and with a windfall in Liberal Democrat seats expected, that they only need to out-perform expectations in a small number of marginals to squeak a majority.
The vast majority of voters aren't the slightest bit interested in an event 6 months away when they have Christmas, New Year, the January sales, Burns Night (in Scotland), Valentine's Day and Easter all to get out of the way before they MIGHT start to think about voting in a GE for a shower of Oxbridge PPE graduates they hold in utter contempt, regardless of party!
We've seen UKIP strengthen in the polling leading up to the spring elections in 2013 and 2014 - so why not 2015 too?
We've seen UKIP strengthen in the polling as a result of defections and by-election triumphs - with another by-election win quite likely in nine days.
I suppose it's possible Farage might be caught buying quinoa from Waitrose in the next few months, but on the balance of probabilities the prospects look good for UKIP at the moment.
The lower-middle class lifestyle implicit in the "1945 settlement" - owner-occupied semi-detached house, Ford Escort in the garage, annual pilgrimage to the Costa Del Whatever - is about to be switched off. People know this in their bones. And they also know that not only are they unable to compete in the labour market, whether as unskilled labour or as management consultants, they are unable to cope with the hardship that's coming.
And after the oil revenue started drying up governments borrowed a trillion pounds to keep the show going for another decade.
All the establishment parties have to offer is more magic money tree promises and a forelock tugging obsequiousness to the super rich.
I have to say Mark Reckless is an impressive candidate. The Labour lady is also good. The big surprise though is how badly the Conservative candidate comes accross. Sneering and aggressive. With this candidate I can't see the Tories standing a chance.
If this is the result of open primaries then better the old system of a panel who can consider personality and who can see at close quarters how suitable or unsuitable a candidate might be
First, charge £150pa per household to register with the NHS (i.e. with a GP, hospitals, clinics and dentists thrown in). That gives the NHS £3bn which frees up the same amount of Government revenue for deficit repayment each year. People can afford this because we convert the BBC licence fee into a subscription, and thus a civil debt.
That's for the Tories in the Coalition; now here's Labour's bit. We apply the bedroom tax (sorry, spare room subsidy) to owner-occupied homes. We'll only apply it to the second spare room and subseqent (and to second homes), we're a Grand Coalition not f*cking Trotsky, after all. Might even get a few people to trade down, and so ease the housing crisis (except that Johnny Foreigner will outbid the natives and then let the houses out to his pals in the potato fields). No idea what that might bring in, depends on the tax rate, let's say we want another £3bn a year from that one, too.
So we get £6bn annually, and can clear the deficit in 60-70 years. That's all right then, the Chinese are good at taking the long view...
' The fact of the matter is that low inflation and low nominal wage growth are making fiscal consolidation extremely difficult. If tax revenues can’t be made to rise, that leaves even more of the hard lifting to be done by spending cuts. And on this front, we must assume that the low hanging fruit has already been plucked. The Office for Budget Responsibility implies in its forecasts roughly a million public sector job cuts by the end of the consolidation in 2018. So far we have had little more than 300,000. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/11220695/Only-a-good-old-fashioned-bout-of-wage-inflation-can-save-the-public-finances.html
If that's true then there's real pain coming after the election.
"First, charge £150pa per household to register with the NHS"
An NHS poll tax, that should work out well.
It seems to have been a typical Grant Schapps/Michael Green/Sebastian Fox idea.
We need to cut drastically in work benefits for those earning more than the average wage.
We need to increase the minimum wage so employers bear more of the cost.
We need to use the power of HB to drive down rents in real terms.
We need to continue the reduction in head count in the public sector for at least another half million.
We have to accept that we have probably overdone IT reductions through the personal allowance and seek to claw some of that back in real terms.
We need another couple of Council Tax bands above what we have at the moment.
We need to further tighten the rules against tax avoidance using pensions.
We have to stop pretending there is anything moral about stealing from our children to make us feel good about foreign aid.
And we need to get elected. Damn! It was all going so well.
If the gains are being received by someone else while you suffer the pain you're angry not grateful.
However I don't quite agree with your point. The issue isn't about taxing us more, people are generally fed up with being charged for the same services twice over. It's more about stopping expenditure. Cut £9bn off overseas aid and it's job done. ( £9bn x 5 years = £45bn )
Any ideas?
Edit - and pretty much the same point to IA, saving £6bn a year reduces the deficit by £6bn. It's not cumulative
"We need to find ways of charging multinationals another £10-15bn for the privilege of having access to our markets. "
Invade and annex Luxemburg looks the best option.
And if they ever get into government they'll disappoint their supporters.
The whole country is addicted to the magic money tree.
Perhaps the most contemptible decision by governments was to pander to this addiction during the last decade rather than tell the truth.
With the result the government is another trillion quid in debt and the magic money tree addiction is even stronger.
1m Fraser Nelson @FraserNelson
After watching the Rochester candidates' debate, Rod Liddle expects UKIP will win by 10,000. His report: http://specc.ie/1xtC5dq
"The Conservative primary was about as 'open' as a Ferdinand Marcos election.
It seems to have been a typical Grant Schapps/Michael Green/Sebastian Fox idea."
Well who chose her then, Peter Mandelson? Surely such a piece of dawkish malliance could only have been cooked up by the great Dr Faustus himself?
Did you mean Grant Shapps/Michael Green/Sebastian Fox/audreyanne?
And that, of course, is assuming the other £50bn reflects cyclical effects currently depressing the tax take. That assumption is looking more optimistic with each passing year. The scale of the problem is almost overwhelming.
And then we have to pay the £1trn back.....
Or we could just vote Labour I suppose. That always works out well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-eu-29991018
Spot the error in this photo caption: "Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, 27 June 1917, the day before being shot"
"Rog and Rod agree."
Oddly enough it seems we do. I don't agree with his comments about a left wing audience-I thought exactly the opposite-and if it wasn't that I was bending over ackwards to be impartial I would have agreed that the Labour candidate was the most impressive.
But it's a two horse race and my filly isn't one of them Reckless was by a mile the the better of the two. The Tory lady is a disaster!
Yvette Cooper - opposition leader (female, clever, pragmatic, comes across well)
Ed Balls - shadow CotE (cleverest Labour MP, and the toughest, will be fully supportive of wife)
Peter Mandelson - shadow Foreign Sec (job he's always wanted. Clever, experienced, liked in party)
Andy Burnham - Shadow Home (promotion, shows maturity to have a rival in top team)
Ed Miliband - Shadow Health (public would feel sympathetic towards him, his mawkish, sincere socialism would suit health)
If Welsh boys did Labour front benches!
One of the mysterious things about British Conservatives going after Juncker is that he's pretty much the best candidate they could possibly have hoped for. If someone else's name had come up first and the papers had gone after them instead you can be sure Juncker would have been Cameron's favoured alternative.
You then have property costs and regulatory costs, and that's where we can get to a more in-depth conversation. The best way to reduce property costs (or at least contain them) is to limit immigration into this country, which is pushing them up dramatically for little economic gain. The best way to reduce regulatory costs is to leave the EU.
I do not pay it out of fury for a certain scandal that has restricted my posting privileges on this site.
I guess the Millipede brothers had clever accountants so they paid nothing. Or perhaps only noble socialists are excluded from IHT. Like the brothers and Tony Benn.
Personally, I thought it was fair enough.