politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How LAB was completely under-rated by the betting markets as polls opened on May 6th 2010
Quite often in political betting a narrative builds up about the infallibility of the betting markets. That somehow because punters are wagering their own hard-earned cash their judgement is better.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy @krishgm "We can build a country that works for everyday people." says Ed Miliband. Is that me? Am I one? I am a person, everyday.
The opinion polls of course pointed to a hung parliament, there was just a general feeling that the Tories would outperform them. I'm not sure what this was based on.
Anybody who is surprised to see from the article in the Previous Thread that Mark Reckless is not the favourite to win Rochester & Strood for UKIP obviously doesn't know anything about Mark Reckless
In 1972-73, how many seats did people generally expect the SNP to win at the next general election? Did the SNP win the seats expected, or were they different ones? I am too young to know what people were thinking before it actually happened in 1974.
I too remain a believer in the strength of the Labour brand - whatever the shortcomings of its current leadership - which is why I'm slightly sceptical of the coming annihilation in Scotland (Glasgow Council, anyone?).
That said, if the current SNP polling was reflected in the ballot box, the Labour brand isn't as strong as some of us think.....
Thanks Mike for reminding us of these polling day figures in 2010 .... very interesting. Also interesting to note that the lack of competition this time has enabled Sporting to widen their spread from five to six seats. It would be handy if IG or another spread bettor were to enter the fray.
Anybody who is surprised to see from the article in the Previous Thread that Mark Reckless is not the favourite to win Rochester & Strood for UKIP obviously doesn't know anything about Mark Reckless
He did fight it twice before getting elected. Shows committment!
In the last five years, they achieved the following,
1) A lower GE share of the vote than the Tories did in 1997
2) First opposition not to win the Euros in 30 years
3) On current polling are about to get thrashed in their heartland of Scotland. They could soon have only 2/3 more MPs in Scotland than the Scottish Tories
Plus the only Labour leader to win a majority in the last 40 years thinks Ed is crap and will lose the election.
Ed Miliband is facing calls from within his own party to take action to secure the election of more black and Asian Labour MPs, amid signs that key constituencies are shunning candidates from ethnic minorities.
Just one non-white candidate has been selected so far in the 34 seats where a sitting Labour MP is stepping down in the general election in May – the constituencies which should provide the best opportunities for the party to get new prospects elected.
By contrast, five Conservative associations among the 32 in constituencies where a sitting MP is retiring have chosen minority candidates.
Ed Miliband is facing calls from within his own party to take action to secure the election of more black and Asian Labour MPs, amid signs that key constituencies are shunning candidates from ethnic minorities.
Just one non-white candidate has been selected so far in the 34 seats where a sitting Labour MP is stepping down in the general election in May – the constituencies which should provide the best opportunities for the party to get new prospects elected.
By contrast, five Conservative associations among the 32 in constituencies where a sitting MP is retiring have chosen minority candidates.
A grand coalition would be an acceptance that there was no real difference between the big two, I doubt anyone would notice any difference from the last decade or so's governments
Probably mean the end of both parties as we know them, could be a good thing
A grand coalition would be an acceptance that there was no real difference between the big two, I doubt anyone would notice any difference from the last decade or so's governments
Probably mean the end of both parties as we know them, could be a good thing
Would almost certainly mean mass defections from Labour's left and the Conservative's Right shortly after the first budget.
Some people think that because there was a coalition out of the last election there's bound to be one this time. However, the British electoral system doesn't work like that, especially when the non Con-Lab votes are so split. Memories are short. Coalitions are rare.
Remember, all it requires is c. 7% lead for either Cons or Lab (a little less for Lab) and there's an outright winner in parliament. No coalition. Can I see that happening? You bet.
If the election produces a situation where Labour and Tories both need a four party coalition to get a majority of three then they will have little choice than to form a coalition with each other, with the aim of going about 18 months before calling another election. This would be heaven for UKIP as it would prove their point on liblabcon.
Surely the wild card though has to be a Labour DUP UKIP coalition. Which, given that the latter are both largely working class parties is not as unthinkable as some might think.
One good thing about a Labour win (especially after Blairs comments) is that it would put the "you can only win from the centre" meme to rest.
I think some of us politics insiders underestimate the way many people treat politics like football, with our team vs their team. I remember a voter back in 1983 making the point explicitly: "I don't rate Michael Foot, I think the party's in a mess and I'm tempted to vote Liberal, but you don't give up on your team just because they're low down in the league, do you?" More currently, there are the repeated poll findings that people "like" Labour best by a fair margin, which despite 40 years of membership just feels odd to me - I don't "like" a party any more than I'm fond of my laptop or my fridge (I just think they're good at what they do).
That sort of attitude is hard to shift. Normally it doesn't matter, because parties have lots of floating voters on top of the core, but both Labour and Tory parties are now primarily getting their core votes, and in today's splintered landscape having the larger core vote may be decisive. Even the core doesn't ALWAYS turn out (cf. the Euros) but at GEs they normally do. The Labour vote at the moment is essentially the core plus the Red Liberals plus some personal votes. It may well be enough.
Mr. Eagles, are you really saying I'll have to get some work done instead of wittering about Greek elections and why Corden doesn't deserve an honour [my only knowledge of him is being a dick at an Abu Dhabi Grand Prix when Boris Becker was being interviewed live].
I got on that 50/1 a few weeks ago. I think it's perfectly possible the two main parties could hug each other closer - something familiar and understood - rather than admit things have fundamentally changed for good.
I remember that it used to be a golden rule on here that whichever poll showed the worst result for Labour was likely to be the most accurate. Typically this was ICM and they built a fair bit of their reputation on the back of it.
Although the pollsters have tried to correct that bias I suspect it still exists simply because of differential turnout. Predicting the number of people who say they support Labour but in the end can't be bothered to walk to the end of their street to the polling station is difficult. A leader like Ed who hardly stirs enthusiasm is likely to aggravate the problem. I expect Labour's vote share to underperform the final polls. This may not make much difference in seats of course.
In contrast, as Mike has brilliantly demonstrated with his table, the betting markets tend to exaggerate the tories' performance. It seems likely this is on the back of wishful thinking by those who have deeper pockets and can influence the market. To suggest that selling tories is a sure fire winner on the spin markets as a result may be going too far but it is certainly the place to start.
More currently, there are the repeated poll findings that people "like" Labour best by a fair margin, which despite 40 years of membership just feels odd to me - I don't "like" a party any more than I'm fond of my laptop or my fridge (I just think they're good at what they do).
Seems like a very damaging admission you just made there. I bet Anna Soubry is fond of her fridge.
I got on that 50/1 a few weeks ago. I think it's perfectly possible the two main parties could hug each other closer - something familiar and understood - rather than admit things have fundamentally changed for good.
Taken a fiver on this. The SNP won't work with the Conservatives, but if Labour do reasonably well in England and the Lib Dems tank so Labour + Lib Dem < 320.
I think it is more likely than the SNP in coalition at any rate.
Mr. Putney, only a gut feeling, but I think the SNP will do better, and UKIP might get a few more seats.
I agree.
Labour 286, Conservative 267, Libdems 30, SNP 40, UKIP 6, PC 2, Green 0, NI 18, Speaker 1
Are the SNP still looking for the removal of Trident to do a deal with Ed ?
For me the real questions isn't which seat UKIP win, its which seats UKIP cause someone else to lose. They will be averaging something like 4000 votes in each constituency on a 12% vote, that a more than quite a few majorities.
Mr. Putney, only a gut feeling, but I think the SNP will do better, and UKIP might get a few more seats.
I agree.
Labour 286, Conservative 267, Libdems 30, SNP 40, UKIP 6, PC 2, Green 0, NI 18, Speaker 1
Are the SNP still looking for the removal of Trident to do a deal with Ed ?
SNP Confidence and supply or grand coalition are the only games in town on those numbers. I can't see the SNP taking ministerial positions given they don't vote on English matters, I think the public would be happier with a grand coalition rather than the SNP in Gov't too...
...Are the SNP still looking for the removal of Trident to do a deal with Ed ?
Nope: Wrong due to SNP duplicity....
The SNP are anti-Nuclear and that includes energy. Trident is a liquid-fueled rocket that launches various decoys and 'instant-sunshine' outwith Scots' waters.
Their problem is still Faslane: Trafalgar, Vanguard, Astute and "Successor" still do not conform to their stated policy. Ergo: Trident is not the issue....
I got on that 50/1 a few weeks ago. I think it's perfectly possible the two main parties could hug each other closer - something familiar and understood - rather than admit things have fundamentally changed for good.
Taken a fiver on this. The SNP won't work with the Conservatives, but if Labour do reasonably well in England and the Lib Dems tank so Labour + Lib Dem < 320.
I think it is more likely than the SNP in coalition at any rate.
I put on a tenner. I think the Conservatives will hold on better than expected in the marginals. I can't see Labour picking up more than 30 seats from them.
I expect the Conservatives will come out in a tight band of between 285 to 305 seats. There may not be very much difference at all between the lower part of that band, and the higher part, in terms of votes. There will be plenty of hyper-marginal results.
I think some on here are underestimating the political impact in England of a labour party doing a deal with the SNP to be in government.
I may be wrong.
More mischievously, CON/LD minority government, with a deal done with the SNP, they get DevoUltraPlus, the coalition get EV4EL and an agreement to abstain on all matters of confidence and supply, on the grounds that the bickering in Westminster is a problem for the Sasanach now they have full devolution ;-)
It's mildly gratifying to see that everyone has now started talking about the chances of a Grand Coalition given I've been pointing out it's a serious possibility for months and kept getting rubbished for it.
There are shorter odds out there than 50/1, but the realistic odds are VERY much shorter than that on the basis of the polls. For example, on Indigo's figures (which are entirely plausible) a Labour/SNP con and sup arrangement would still only have an overall majority of 1 in theory (maybe 5/6 in practice). Not enough for a stable government under fixed term parliaments. It would have to be a three-way deal, and when you start talking about the Lib Dems and SNP in coalition with each other and someone else, at that point a Grand Coalition starts looking like a much better option.
For those boosting the idea of a grand coalition, do you see Ed Balls as Chancellor under David Cameron as Prime Minister or George Osborne as Chancellor under Ed Miliband? Is your answer different if Labour has 280 seats and the Conservatives 265 seats or vice versa?
Once you start coming down to personalities, it seems staggeringly improbable.
My guess would be that the SNP will do somewhat worse in terms of seats than is currently being predicted. I can see them gaining maybe 15 to get them up to 21. These seats are hard to take requiring big swings and the Labour plea of "keep the tory (not suitable for a family site) out" is still potent in Scotland.
This would mean that the Lib Dems would remain the third largest party by a relatively comfortable margin. I am guessing very high 20s, possibly 30 for them.
I think it is looking increasingly likely Labour will be the largest party. The tories are simply not making the recovery that they needed to to be competitive. Part of this is of course the strength of UKIP which I confess has surprised me. I would guess Labour will be very close to 300.
I agree with antifrank that the Greens will stay at 1 although their increased strength will probably cost Labour their majority. I also think UKIP will do much worse than antifrank is indicating. I would be surprised if they end up with more than 3 seats but then I have been surprised by them before.
All of this would put the tories in the high 270s, nowhere near the calamities of the Blair era but out of power. I think Javid is an excellent bet for the next leader, much better than May.
My guess would be that we will have a minority Labour government with some support from the Lib Dems short of a Coalition as they try to consolidate a diminished party under new leadership. I completely agree with antifrank that this should be Steve Webb but that it will be Farron.
It's mildly gratifying to see that everyone has now started talking about the chances of a Grand Coalition given I've been pointing out it's a serious possibility for months and kept getting rubbished for it.
There are shorter odds out there than 50/1, but the realistic odds are VERY much shorter than that on the basis of the polls. For example, on Indigo's figures (which are entirely plausible) a Labour/SNP con and sup arrangement would still only have an overall majority of 1 in theory (maybe 5/6 in practice). Not enough for a stable government under fixed term parliaments. It would have to be a three-way deal, and when you start talking about the Lib Dems and SNP in coalition with each other and someone else, at that point a Grand Coalition starts looking like a much better option.
On topic, whilst the Lab figs were too pessimistic, they still lost 91 MPs and the direction of movement (down) for Labour and Up for the Conservatives was correctly predicted. It was the Lib Dems where the direction of travel for their seats (down) was wrongly forecast.
For those boosting the idea of a grand coalition, do you see Ed Balls as Chancellor under David Cameron as Prime Minister or George Osborne as Chancellor under Ed Miliband? Is your answer different if Labour has 280 seats and the Conservatives 265 seats or vice versa?
Once you start coming down to personalities, it seems staggeringly improbable.
I can hear those "for the good of the country in these perilous times" speeches already.
It's interesting on the FT site as well to look at their predictions re. Hilary Clinton. I have always taken the view that if she is the Democratic candidate a stuffed donkey could win the election for the Republicans. She is old - if elected, the second-oldest president ever elected and indeed instantly the third-oldest of all time - arrogant, has repeatedly proven she is not very capable and is tainted by association with the excesses of her husband's tenure. Moreover, she is going to have to find a way to win with a very mixed legacy from Obama hanging over the Democrats, which doesn't seem terribly likely in itself. Her higher poll ratings seem to be based on name recognition as much as anything else.
Is it wishful thinking on the part of the FT? Or is there really something about American politics I don't get?
For those boosting the idea of a grand coalition, do you see Ed Balls as Chancellor under David Cameron as Prime Minister or George Osborne as Chancellor under Ed Miliband? Is your answer different if Labour has 280 seats and the Conservatives 265 seats or vice versa?
Once you start coming down to personalities, it seems staggeringly improbable.
I can hear those "for the good of the country in these perilous times" speeches already.
It would depend on who had most seats. Or - this is real left-field thought, but you never know in such cases - they could invite a senior and respected backbencher from either party to lead it, a la Lloyd George and (in effect) Ramsay MacDonald.
But that seems extremely improbable to me. It is almost inconceivable to my mind that the leader of the largest party would not be PM, with the leader of the other party as Chancellor, which would solve both problems at a stroke. Move Osborne to the Foreign Office and make Balls HS, which are roles they would be better suited to anyway.
I'm conducting a snap facebook poll as to what the "likers" of the two main parties (6 friends for each out of ~ 500) would prefer for next Gov't in terms of options.
Lab-Lib Coalition Labour Minority, confidence and supply from Lib Dems Labour Minority, confidence and supply from SNP Lab-SNP coalition Whisky & revolver. Lab-Con (Grand) Coalition. Lab minority, c&s from UKIP
Lab-Lib Coalition Labour Minority, confidence and supply from Lib Dems Labour Minority, confidence and supply from SNP Lab-SNP coalition Whisky & revolver. Lab-Con (Grand) Coalition. Lab minority, c&s from UKIP
Most interesting antifrank, and kudos for having the cuillions to go public with your thoughts, however it may turn out.
There's plenty to think about The 2 things I probably would most question
6. The election campaign won't change very much, but a lot of people will try to persuade you otherwise I'm expecting a touch of "Sheffield Rally" about Labour's election campaign, although perhaps more drawn out. Labour to enter the election campaign with a broadly equal (with the Tories) polling position, probably very wobbly polls during the campaign, and Labour to modestly underperform the polls on the day.
7. The next government will be a Labour minority government JackW doesn't think so. So for that reason, and the reason above, probably not.
For those boosting the idea of a grand coalition, do you see Ed Balls as Chancellor under David Cameron as Prime Minister or George Osborne as Chancellor under Ed Miliband? Is your answer different if Labour has 280 seats and the Conservatives 265 seats or vice versa?
Once you start coming down to personalities, it seems staggeringly improbable.
I can hear those "for the good of the country in these perilous times" speeches already.
Yes, politicians do deals. It's what they're all about.
Lab-Lib Coalition Labour Minority, confidence and supply from Lib Dems Labour Minority, confidence and supply from SNP Lab-SNP coalition Whisky & revolver. Lab-Con (Grand) Coalition. Lab minority, c&s from UKIP
HM rule by decree?
Constitutionally sort of impossible, didn't happen in World War 2 :P
Lab-Lib Coalition Labour Minority, confidence and supply from Lib Dems Labour Minority, confidence and supply from SNP Lab-SNP coalition Whisky & revolver. Lab-Con (Grand) Coalition. Lab minority, c&s from UKIP
HM rule by decree?
Constitutionally sort of impossible, didn't happen in World War 2 :P
Then I fear we have no hope! Whisky & revolver it'll be
The FT went 'pink' years ago. When - in 1997 - t'Economist stated that neither the Conservatives nor Labour were fit to govern Pearsons thought otherwise.
Due to platform changes I cannot post anecdotes from people who reportedly worked-with/knew the likes of 'lickle-lord-richie-peston', 'Ed-n-Balls; and his ilk at the time. Maybe, like :tumbleweed:, something will blow hot-and-cold through our shared historical thoughts.....
Interesting, thank you. But that still seems to be about name recognition. People have heard of Hilary Clinton, and as Jeb Bush has been in the news, he gets more support than the other possibilities (despite being a Bush). They even make the assumption 'if she is the candidate', pretty much based on the fact nobody has heard of any of the others. They made that assumption in 2006-7 as well...
I say again that she looks a long shot to me for the presidency. I have taught American politics, although I wouldn't describe myself as an expert on them, and I really can't see her winning given the enormous practical barriers she faces.
Feel free to rub my nose in it if I am proven wrong in November 2016!
For those boosting the idea of a grand coalition, do you see Ed Balls as Chancellor under David Cameron as Prime Minister or George Osborne as Chancellor under Ed Miliband? Is your answer different if Labour has 280 seats and the Conservatives 265 seats or vice versa?
Once you start coming down to personalities, it seems staggeringly improbable.
For those boosting the idea of a grand coalition, do you see Ed Balls as Chancellor under David Cameron as Prime Minister or George Osborne as Chancellor under Ed Miliband? Is your answer different if Labour has 280 seats and the Conservatives 265 seats or vice versa?
Once you start coming down to personalities, it seems staggeringly improbable.
I can hear those "for the good of the country in these perilous times" speeches already.
Yes, politicians do deals. It's what they're all about.
I have heard it said the politicians tend to have friends on the benches opposite, because the ones on the benches behind them are after their job. That wont last long in a Grand Coalition, the bickering is bad enough at the moment with Conservatives complaining in effect that a job they think should be theirs or their mentors has been taken by a LD, imagine if even more jobs went to the hated enemy.
ydoethur It will be much closer than that poll suggests, but in my view she will win, the US public have a far rosier memory of the Clinton years than the Bush or Obama years. In 2008 she was polling about 40% at this stage for the Democratic nomination and still arguably won the popular vote, now she is nearer 60%.
As for 'name recognition' well virtually every American knows Jeb Bush and she beats him comfortably, and most know 2012 VP nominee Paul Ryan who she also beats comfortably. Cruz, Christie, Paul and Huckabee are also hardly unknowns (Huckabee has run before and the others have high profiles) the only real unknown is Carson. At this stage Obama was beating Romney, Bush beating Kerry, Bush beating Gore and Clinton beating Dole, McCain v Obama was tighter, but of course the Lehmans crash had an impact there. I would expect her to run and to win
One seat the Greens may fancy their chances in that you don't mention is Stroud, where they have a strong presence on the local council. They won't win it - if anyone other than Labour win it given how useless Neil Carmichael is and how personally popular David Drew is, then Labour are on course to come third nationally - but they might make a big effort there and possibly even come second.
I can hear those "for the good of the country in these perilous times" speeches already.
Well if they really want to catapult UKIP from 15% to 30%....
No, I really don't and I think it is important that our major parties maintain at least the illusion of choice by staying apart. Apart from anything else it would be unnecessarily cruel to all those lefties who prefer to go through life thinking that hard choices are some right wing delusion.
I have just been observing politicians for a long time. They can talk themselves into almost anything and persuade themselves that they are being altruistic.
For those boosting the idea of a grand coalition, do you see Ed Balls as Chancellor under David Cameron as Prime Minister or George Osborne as Chancellor under Ed Miliband? Is your answer different if Labour has 280 seats and the Conservatives 265 seats or vice versa?
Once you start coming down to personalities, it seems staggeringly improbable.
Phil Hammond PM, Alistair Darling CoE ^_~ ?
Darling's not sitting in the GE, so we're safe from that particular grand coalition of monotony.
Interesting, thank you. But that still seems to be about name recognition. People have heard of Hilary Clinton, and as Jeb Bush has been in the news, he gets more support than the other possibilities (despite being a Bush). They even make the assumption 'if she is the candidate', pretty much based on the fact nobody has heard of any of the others. They made that assumption in 2006-7 as well...
I say again that she looks a long shot to me for the presidency. I have taught American politics, although I wouldn't describe myself as an expert on them, and I really can't see her winning given the enormous practical barriers she faces.
Feel free to rub my nose in it if I am proven wrong in November 2016!
"I say again that she looks a long shot to me for the presidency."
She is 2.42 to lay on Betfair for the presidency, you better get piling on for a 40% return !
For those boosting the idea of a grand coalition, do you see Ed Balls as Chancellor under David Cameron as Prime Minister or George Osborne as Chancellor under Ed Miliband? Is your answer different if Labour has 280 seats and the Conservatives 265 seats or vice versa?
Once you start coming down to personalities, it seems staggeringly improbable.
Phil Hammond PM, Alistair Darling CoE ^_~ ?
Darling's not sitting in the GE, so we're safe from that particular grand coalition of monotony.
I note he doesn't have any letters behind his name either yet - does that mean he is unlikely to go into the Lords ?
"Ed Miliband is facing calls from within his own party to take action to secure the election of more black and Asian Labour MPs, amid signs that key constituencies are shunning candidates from ethnic minorities."
It may be racism, or it could be tactical decisions. For example, Ealing Southall at the last General Election, candidates were ...
Labour Virendra Sharma Conservative Gurcharan Singh Liberal Democrat Nigel Bakhai Green Suneil Basu Christian Mehboob Anil English Democrats Sati Chaggar
For those boosting the idea of a grand coalition, do you see Ed Balls as Chancellor under David Cameron as Prime Minister or George Osborne as Chancellor under Ed Miliband? Is your answer different if Labour has 280 seats and the Conservatives 265 seats or vice versa?
Once you start coming down to personalities, it seems staggeringly improbable.
Phil Hammond PM, Alistair Darling CoE ^_~ ?
Can you imagine the Scottish-Bar (or whatever the grunts who sacked him he resigned from are called) would say about a discredited lawyer, promoted to the House-of-Lords in Westminster, as Chancellor-of-the-Exchequer? And then - sigh - unckie-clown (for whom we await his awakening from buckfast and mcewans; and sick) is going to say....
For those boosting the idea of a grand coalition, do you see Ed Balls as Chancellor under David Cameron as Prime Minister or George Osborne as Chancellor under Ed Miliband? Is your answer different if Labour has 280 seats and the Conservatives 265 seats or vice versa?
Once you start coming down to personalities, it seems staggeringly improbable.
Phil Hammond PM, Alistair Darling CoE ^_~ ?
Can you imagine the Scottish-Bar (or whatever the grunts who sacked him he resigned from are called) would say about a discredited lawyer, promoted to the House-of-Lords in Westminster, as Chancellor-of-the-Exchequer? And then - sigh - unckie-clown (for whom we await his awakening from buckfast and mcewans; and sick) is going to say....
It's even better than that - the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to be a member of the House of Commons. Therefore, if Darling were to head the Treasury from the Lords, his official title would have to be First Lord of the Treasury.
Oh yes...that's the official title of the Prime Minister and has been since 1902...that would cause confusion, wouldn't it?
SNP Confidence and supply or grand coalition are the only games in town on those numbers
I think some on here are underestimating the political impact in England of a labour party doing a deal with the SNP to be in government.
I may be wrong.
It depends what the resulting deal leads to. However, I'd be very surprised if there was a deal. The SNP is not going to bring down a Labour government and is unlikely to vote on English matters anyway. Much more likely is an informal hook-up between Labour and LD for England-only matters.
For those boosting the idea of a grand coalition, do you see Ed Balls as Chancellor under David Cameron as Prime Minister or George Osborne as Chancellor under Ed Miliband? Is your answer different if Labour has 280 seats and the Conservatives 265 seats or vice versa?
Once you start coming down to personalities, it seems staggeringly improbable.
Phil Hammond PM, Alistair Darling CoE ^_~ ?
Can you imagine the Scottish-Bar (or whatever the grunts who sacked him he resigned from are called) would say about a discredited lawyer, promoted to the House-of-Lords in Westminster, as Chancellor-of-the-Exchequer? And then - sigh - unckie-clown (for whom we await his awakening from buckfast and mcewans; and sick) is going to say....
The Faculty of Advocates Fluffy. And he is pretty popular and respected there. As I can attest to being a member.
@FT: We are predicting a Conservative-Labour coalition in the UK next year. See the rest of the FT 2015 forecasts here: http://t.co/suWZA6C9CK
I've raised that possibility on PB before. I think that it's still unlikely, but how unlikely? Is there a betting market on a Grand Coalition yet?
That would definitively kill Labour forever in Scotland, would end the union and labour link (and the Union), would see the creation of a new Socialist Labour party with, say, 50 to 100 MPs, and would drive dozens - at least - of Tory MPs over to UKIP. And it would last for a year at most.
In short, it is not going to happen under any circumstance short of global war.
300,000,000 Americans. What are the chances of the new candidates being closely related to previous and recent presidents? If it happened in the Third World, we'd suspect nepotism.
I can hear those "for the good of the country in these perilous times" speeches already.
Well if they really want to catapult UKIP from 15% to 30%....
No, I really don't and I think it is important that our major parties maintain at least the illusion of choice by staying apart. Apart from anything else it would be unnecessarily cruel to all those lefties who prefer to go through life thinking that hard choices are some right wing delusion.
I have just been observing politicians for a long time. They can talk themselves into almost anything and persuade themselves that they are being altruistic.
Without some sort of black swan are there really going to be “perilous” times in May 2015? I suspect it’ll be some sort of Lab OR Con-led government, but what that’ll be I’m not sure. I wouldn’t be too surprised, TBH, if we didn’t end up with what we’ve got now!
Comments
(and first)
"We can build a country that works for everyday people." says Ed Miliband. Is that me? Am I one? I am a person, everyday.
Research suggests Hogmanay originated in Yorkshire
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/228282-obama-approval-at-highest-in-over-a-year-poll-finds
That said, if the current SNP polling was reflected in the ballot box, the Labour brand isn't as strong as some of us think.....
This thread meme long since died.
For balance.
@FT: We are predicting a Conservative-Labour coalition in the UK next year. See the rest of the FT 2015 forecasts here: http://t.co/suWZA6C9CK
In the last five years, they achieved the following,
1) A lower GE share of the vote than the Tories did in 1997
2) First opposition not to win the Euros in 30 years
3) On current polling are about to get thrashed in their heartland of Scotland. They could soon have only 2/3 more MPs in Scotland than the Scottish Tories
Plus the only Labour leader to win a majority in the last 40 years thinks Ed is crap and will lose the election.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/my-predictions-for-2014-retrospective.html
I think the fun in Greece makes it a possibility.
Plus I was shocked to hear a Labour chap admit that a coalition with the SNP needed to be avoided at all costs.
Original prediction was published in "The World in 2015". The five key names have already been posted on previous threads....
Ed Miliband is facing calls from within his own party to take action to secure the election of more black and Asian Labour MPs, amid signs that key constituencies are shunning candidates from ethnic minorities.
Just one non-white candidate has been selected so far in the 34 seats where a sitting Labour MP is stepping down in the general election in May – the constituencies which should provide the best opportunities for the party to get new prospects elected.
By contrast, five Conservative associations among the 32 in constituencies where a sitting MP is retiring have chosen minority candidates.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-shuns-black-and-asian-candidates-in-winnable-seats-9950913.html
Currently 50/1
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/next-government
Probably mean the end of both parties as we know them, could be a good thing
Remember, all it requires is c. 7% lead for either Cons or Lab (a little less for Lab) and there's an outright winner in parliament. No coalition. Can I see that happening?
You bet.
Surely the wild card though has to be a Labour DUP UKIP coalition. Which, given that the latter are both largely working class parties is not as unthinkable as some might think.
One good thing about a Labour win (especially after Blairs comments) is that it would put the "you can only win from the centre" meme to rest.
Withdrawal symptoms: The internet-crack is not available! Expect someone to suggest a fund-rasing exercise....
That sort of attitude is hard to shift. Normally it doesn't matter, because parties have lots of floating voters on top of the core, but both Labour and Tory parties are now primarily getting their core votes, and in today's splintered landscape having the larger core vote may be decisive. Even the core doesn't ALWAYS turn out (cf. the Euros) but at GEs they normally do. The Labour vote at the moment is essentially the core plus the Red Liberals plus some personal votes. It may well be enough.
Incidentally, awesome speech by Merkel:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/angela-merkel-criticises-pegida-far-right-group-germany
If we had direct European elections for President, I'd be tempted to vote for her.
@tonyblairoffice: TB: "My remarks have been mis-interpreted, I fully support Ed and my party and expect a Labour victory in the election."
Sentiments are nice: Realities are unavoidable. Merkel is a fallen star....
Edited-to-Add:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t_PDU5RmBw
When I say we're moving I mean Robert is.
There won't be a grand coalition. Although, if we do end up with a fragmented nightmare, it'll be interesting/horrific to see what happens.
Although the pollsters have tried to correct that bias I suspect it still exists simply because of differential turnout. Predicting the number of people who say they support Labour but in the end can't be bothered to walk to the end of their street to the polling station is difficult. A leader like Ed who hardly stirs enthusiasm is likely to aggravate the problem. I expect Labour's vote share to underperform the final polls. This may not make much difference in seats of course.
In contrast, as Mike has brilliantly demonstrated with his table, the betting markets tend to exaggerate the tories' performance. It seems likely this is on the back of wishful thinking by those who have deeper pockets and can influence the market. To suggest that selling tories is a sure fire winner on the spin markets as a result may be going too far but it is certainly the place to start.
I think it is more likely than the SNP in coalition at any rate.
Party No. of Seats
Labour 300
Conservatives 270
LibDems 30
SNP 25
UKIP 3
Plaid Cymru 2
Greens 1
N. Ireland Parties 18
Speaker 1
Total 650
Do Labour Party member really think this man would be good for the country..really
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/2015-may-and-everything-after.html
I think I broadly agree with your predictions.
Though my only caveat is that Labour can win a majority on maybe as low as 33%.
Labour 286, Conservative 267, Libdems 30, SNP 40, UKIP 6, PC 2, Green 0, NI 18, Speaker 1
Are the SNP still looking for the removal of Trident to do a deal with Ed ?
For me the real questions isn't which seat UKIP win, its which seats UKIP cause someone else to lose. They will be averaging something like 4000 votes in each constituency on a 12% vote, that a more than quite a few majorities.
I think some on here are underestimating the political impact in England of a labour party doing a deal with the SNP to be in government.
I may be wrong.
The SNP are anti-Nuclear and that includes energy. Trident is a liquid-fueled rocket that launches various decoys and 'instant-sunshine' outwith Scots' waters.
Their problem is still Faslane: Trafalgar, Vanguard, Astute and "Successor" still do not conform to their stated policy. Ergo: Trident is not the issue....
I expect the Conservatives will come out in a tight band of between 285 to 305 seats. There may not be very much difference at all between the lower part of that band, and the higher part, in terms of votes. There will be plenty of hyper-marginal results.
There are shorter odds out there than 50/1, but the realistic odds are VERY much shorter than that on the basis of the polls. For example, on Indigo's figures (which are entirely plausible) a Labour/SNP con and sup arrangement would still only have an overall majority of 1 in theory (maybe 5/6 in practice). Not enough for a stable government under fixed term parliaments. It would have to be a three-way deal, and when you start talking about the Lib Dems and SNP in coalition with each other and someone else, at that point a Grand Coalition starts looking like a much better option.
Why is Ed opposing it tooth and nail...???
Once you start coming down to personalities, it seems staggeringly improbable.
This would mean that the Lib Dems would remain the third largest party by a relatively comfortable margin. I am guessing very high 20s, possibly 30 for them.
I think it is looking increasingly likely Labour will be the largest party. The tories are simply not making the recovery that they needed to to be competitive. Part of this is of course the strength of UKIP which I confess has surprised me. I would guess Labour will be very close to 300.
I agree with antifrank that the Greens will stay at 1 although their increased strength will probably cost Labour their majority. I also think UKIP will do much worse than antifrank is indicating. I would be surprised if they end up with more than 3 seats but then I have been surprised by them before.
All of this would put the tories in the high 270s, nowhere near the calamities of the Blair era but out of power. I think Javid is an excellent bet for the next leader, much better than May.
My guess would be that we will have a minority Labour government with some support from the Lib Dems short of a Coalition as they try to consolidate a diminished party under new leadership. I completely agree with antifrank that this should be Steve Webb but that it will be Farron.
Quite apart from absolutely proving UKIP's point that 'they are all the same'
Is it wishful thinking on the part of the FT? Or is there really something about American politics I don't get?
Well if they really want to catapult UKIP from 15% to 30%....
But that seems extremely improbable to me. It is almost inconceivable to my mind that the leader of the largest party would not be PM, with the leader of the other party as Chancellor, which would solve both problems at a stroke. Move Osborne to the Foreign Office and make Balls HS, which are roles they would be better suited to anyway.
CNN US 2016 general election
•Hillary Clinton (D) 54% [59%] (58%)
•Jeb Bush (R) 41% [36%] (36%)
•Hillary Clinton (D) 56% [56%] (52%)
•Paul Ryan (R) 41% [39%] (43% )
•Hillary Clinton (D) 56% [56%] (47%)
•Chris Christie (R) 39% [37%] (47%)
•Hillary Clinton (D) 58% [58%] (54%)
•Rand Paul (R) 38% [38%] (40%)
•Hillary Clinton (D) 56%
•Ben Carson (R) 35%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 59% [57%] (55%)
•Mike Huckabee (R) 38% [38%] (39%)
•Hillary Clinton (D) 60%
•Ted Cruz (R) 35%
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/12/24/poll2.pdf
Labour Minority, confidence and supply from Lib Dems
Labour Minority, confidence and supply from SNP
Lab-SNP coalition
Whisky & revolver.
Lab-Con (Grand) Coalition.
Lab minority, c&s from UKIP
There's plenty to think about
The 2 things I probably would most question
6. The election campaign won't change very much, but a lot of people will try to persuade you otherwise
I'm expecting a touch of "Sheffield Rally" about Labour's election campaign, although perhaps more drawn out. Labour to enter the election campaign with a broadly equal (with the Tories) polling position, probably very wobbly polls during the campaign, and Labour to modestly underperform the polls on the day.
7. The next government will be a Labour minority government
JackW doesn't think so. So for that reason, and the reason above, probably not.
However it pans out, it will be fascinating.
Due to platform changes I cannot post anecdotes from people who reportedly worked-with/knew the likes of 'lickle-lord-richie-peston', 'Ed-n-Balls; and his ilk at the time. Maybe, like :tumbleweed:, something will blow hot-and-cold through our shared historical thoughts.....
I say again that she looks a long shot to me for the presidency. I have taught American politics, although I wouldn't describe myself as an expert on them, and I really can't see her winning given the enormous practical barriers she faces.
Feel free to rub my nose in it if I am proven wrong in November 2016!
As for 'name recognition' well virtually every American knows Jeb Bush and she beats him comfortably, and most know 2012 VP nominee Paul Ryan who she also beats comfortably. Cruz, Christie, Paul and Huckabee are also hardly unknowns (Huckabee has run before and the others have high profiles) the only real unknown is Carson. At this stage Obama was beating Romney, Bush beating Kerry, Bush beating Gore and Clinton beating Dole, McCain v Obama was tighter, but of course the Lehmans crash had an impact there. I would expect her to run and to win
One seat the Greens may fancy their chances in that you don't mention is Stroud, where they have a strong presence on the local council. They won't win it - if anyone other than Labour win it given how useless Neil Carmichael is and how personally popular David Drew is, then Labour are on course to come third nationally - but they might make a big effort there and possibly even come second.
I have just been observing politicians for a long time. They can talk themselves into almost anything and persuade themselves that they are being altruistic.
Darling's not sitting in the GE, so we're safe from that particular grand coalition of monotony.
She is 2.42 to lay on Betfair for the presidency, you better get piling on for a 40% return !
It may be racism, or it could be tactical decisions. For example, Ealing Southall at the last General Election, candidates were ...
Labour Virendra Sharma
Conservative Gurcharan Singh
Liberal Democrat Nigel Bakhai
Green Suneil Basu
Christian Mehboob Anil
English Democrats Sati Chaggar
Make of that what you will.
Oh yes...that's the official title of the Prime Minister and has been since 1902...that would cause confusion, wouldn't it?
In short, it is not going to happen under any circumstance short of global war.
300,000,000 Americans. What are the chances of the new candidates being closely related to previous and recent presidents? If it happened in the Third World, we'd suspect nepotism.
(and so is the headline, although I work on the principle, will it make John Rentoul's QTWTAIN list, if so, then I shouldn't use that headline)