politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB most seats slips to just a 40% chance making it the bes

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB most seats slips to just a 40% chance making it the best value GE2015 bet

After yesterday’s Lord Ashcroft Scottish polling and last night’s YouGov recording a CON lead the money on the general election betting markets has moved to the Tories.

Read the full story here

Gadfly

First!

Kwok

Labour have never increased their share of the vote from this point to a General Election. The mean fall in Labour's share from the 3 month line to polling day is 4.2%. The mean is the same regardless of whether they are in government or opposition.

From current polling the mean form fall would put them between 27.5% and 28% share of the vote. Majority of seats is also therefore unlikely given the SNP situation.

Unless you wish to bet against form, which occasionally works, avoid this seeming 'value.'

Cyclefree

I heard an interview with the Lowell Goddard, the NZ judge appointed to head the new CSE inquiry. The first thing I hope she does is to issue an order to all public authorities to preserve all relevant documents, in whatever form they exist.

richardDodd

Kwok..well observed..That will start a sh8t storm when the lefties on here finally wake up.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

The Scottish situation does make things rather trickier for Labour, and in England UKIP and (to a lesser extent) the Greens could produce some peculiar results.

rcs1000

Kwok: I know who you are. Mike does not appreciate people attempting to circumvent bans by changing their username. I am sure the ban you recieved was only a 24 hour one (although I don't know what for), so if you are a little patient, I suspect you will be reinstated shortly.

Sean_F

FPT, if Labour win Southgate, they're heading for a landslide.

Peter_the_Punter

It looks about evens to me who finishes with the greater number of seats, so some value in backing Labour now, but not much. Laying Conservative OM looks better, though it requires more cash. It's hard to see how odds of 5/1 can be justified.

Btw, I was asked by a friend what were the chances of a second Con/Lab coalition. I said close to zero, even if the numbers stack up (say 300 Con seats and 30 Libdem.) Am I wrong, and if so why?

foxinsoxuk

FPT (caught by the new thread):

Peter_the_Punter said:

PokerSNGpro said:

Betting post

Having dinner last night in London and got a very hot tip. I haven't really looked into this much to be frank as London isn't an area I know well but apparently Sarah Sackman is going to win Finchley/Golders Green for Labour.

She has the backing of the Tory Evening Standard (shock!!!!) and even the right wing editor Sarah Sands like her and is supporting her. She is receiving lots of backing from across the constituency and has cross party support.

The reason I'm posting this, is because its the first significant seat where everyone concerned seems to want her to win. If you look at the betting, her price is huge.

3/1 isn't that big, Poker.

The seat is a semi-marginal and London is polling a bit stronger for Labour than most parts, so not a major upset if they take this one. The Standard is a give-away and I doubt it has much political influence these days. The Jewish vote is not a block vote. I would say it splits roughly the same as the non-Jewish vote. The area is fairly mixed - I know it well - and it really doesn't surprise me that it is kind of marginal. I accept the Labour candidate is strong, but the incumbent is popular. The price looks about right.

Btw, I noticed you sounding off the other day about Site bias, or too many Tory posters, or something like that. The problem here is not too many blues - or reds, or yellows, or purples - but too few punters. It's the betting angle that gives the Site its USP, and without a vibrant contribution from regular serious punters, it would become just another dull, biased political blog.

Welcome aboard. Keep posting, keep punting.

If there is a seat where Ed's rather geekish roots are popular, it may well be this one. Even so 3/1 does not seem very good value. I may keep it in my watchlist though.

Yet another Lab/Con fight, where the LD's are yet to select, despite 17% at the last election. Morley and Outwood is the same. I note that the Tories have been rather sluggish selecting in LD marginals like Burnley or Caithness. Coincidence or Conspiracy? Certainly it shows a lack of organisation and intent.

Pulpstar

I sort of agree with the analysis BUT.....

Peter_the_Punter

test

foxinsoxuk

Kwok said:

Labour have never increased their share of the vote from this point to a General Election. The mean fall in Labour's share from the 3 month line to polling day is 4.2%. The mean is the same regardless of whether they are in government or opposition.

From current polling the mean form fall would put them between 27.5% and 28% share of the vote. Majority of seats is also therefore unlikely given the SNP situation.

Unless you wish to bet against form, which occasionally works, avoid this seeming 'value.'

Greetings:

I think you are right. In addition I think Labour voters are going to be less likely to be on the register on the day, or enthused to turnout.

Whether the 4.2% drop in the share goes to the Tories, or elsewhere remains the question.

Cyclefree

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11391227/David-Blunkett-Labour-should-bring-back-the-death-tax.html

How social care in old age is paid for is a tricky question. But the way this is presented it looks as if Labour want to tax your house when you're alive and working, tax it when you're a pensioner and not working and tax it again when you're dead - assuming there's anything left.

Blunkett asks a reasonable question when he says why should the children of homeowners in the South East win the lottery when their parent die. But the answer is not that they are winning the lottery but rather that any inheritance - and remember that 40% of it will be taxed before they get it anyway (the income to buy it also having been taxed and any improvements having paid VAT as well) - is probably the only way any of those children will be able to buy their own homes or, even, at this rate find somewhere to rent.

Labour do give the impression that all they are interested in doing is taking as much of your earnings and savings as they can lay their hands on.

Peter_the_Punter

Cyclefree said:

I heard an interview with the Lowell Goddard, the NZ judge appointed to head the new CSE inquiry. The first thing I hope she does is to issue an order to all public authorities to preserve all relevant documents, in whatever form they exist.

One would hope so, Cyclefree. It seems like a good appointment. Congratulations to Ms May, even if it did take her three goes to get it right.

And to continue on this cheerful note, Isam linked us to this ineresting iittle piece in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11391319/Four-Westminster-child-sex-abuse-files-unearthed-in-Whitehall-archives.html

Seems all that was hidden was not actually lost. Maybe somewhere somebody has another copy of the Dickens file.

And finally, did you not get my Vanilla email re Cheltenham? I can send it again if you are interested in meeting up with a few other PBers and me who congregate there annually.

Freggles

I remain of the view that the chunk of voters that LAB had for some time after the election, who seem to have gone DK or Green, are basically Anti-Tories. They may not be enthused by Ed Miliband, but they will know enough about their seats to know if they need to pile behind Labour to prevent a Tory victory.

Many will be in safe Labour seats and will feel free to signal their dissatisfaction in a harmless way by voting Green

Indigo

Cyclefree said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11391227/David-Blunkett-Labour-should-bring-back-the-death-tax.html

How social care in old age is paid for is a tricky question. But the way this is presented it looks as if Labour want to tax your house when you're alive and working, tax it when you're a pensioner and not working and tax it again when you're dead - assuming there's anything left.

Blunkett asks a reasonable question when he says why should the children of homeowners in the South East win the lottery when their parent die. But the answer is not that they are winning the lottery but rather that any inheritance - and remember that 40% of it will be taxed before they get it anyway (the income to buy it also having been taxed and any improvements having paid VAT as well) - is probably the only way any of those children will be able to buy their own homes or, even, at this rate find somewhere to rent.

Labour do give the impression that all they are interested in doing is taking as much of your earnings and savings as they can lay their hands on.

Its disingenuous cant anyway. The children didn't hit the jackpot, their parents invested large amounts of money in the jackpot, just as if they had put money in a savings account or trust fund for their offspring, and with a little tax planning the latter would have been completely tax free. Northern Children could inherit just as much if their parents decided to buy a bigger house, or invest in other types of assets.

Freggles

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

Artist

This move in the market seems reasonable enough considering the Ashcroft Scottish poll, which was worse for Labour than many thought. The discrepancy between most seats and the Prime Minister after the GE market has also been fixed, Labour could be behind in seats but find it easier to form a government because of the SNP.

Ishmael_X

Kwok said:

Labour have never increased their share of the vote from this point to a General Election. The mean fall in Labour's share from the 3 month line to polling day is 4.2%. The mean is the same regardless of whether they are in government or opposition.

From current polling the mean form fall would put them between 27.5% and 28% share of the vote. Majority of seats is also therefore unlikely given the SNP situation.

Unless you wish to bet against form, which occasionally works, avoid this seeming 'value.'

I am probably being picky or stupid, but how could the mean not be the same?

A rolling, how it looked this far out in previous GEs daily update would be extremely interesting if anyone has the resources to produce such a thing - a Previous Election National Intention Synopsis, one might call it.

rottenborough

Morning all,

I see David Blunket was out and about yesterday promoting a tax on estates to help pay for social care. Personally, I think there's a lot of merit in something along these lines as the fear of the costs of social care is a major headache for more and more people.

Strikes me though that this intervention only emphasises that we voters don't actually know what Labour's policy on this one is. I think something big on social care in old age could be a game changer as far as the older voter is concern - a segment that Cameron has been busy keeping happy.

Mortimer

Freggles said:

I remain of the view that the chunk of voters that LAB had for some time after the election, who seem to have gone DK or Green, are basically Anti-Tories. They may not be enthused by Ed Miliband, but they will know enough about their seats to know if they need to pile behind Labour to prevent a Tory victory.

Many will be in safe Labour seats and will feel free to signal their dissatisfaction in a harmless way by voting Green

The first stage of denial; exactly what the Blues used to say about UKIP......

Peter_the_Punter

@Fox

Yes, it's the sort of seat where I could see Labour doing better than average, but winning it is a big ask.

Unless Osborne does something daft in the budget - like introducing a shtreimel tax - Finchley and Golders Green is safe.

Pulpstar

Freggles said:

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

If it is a narrow CON win then the Lib Dems won't have enough to give them a majority, even combined.

Unless the Lib Dems beat the SNP - which I'm on at a crazy 10-1 now thanks to Coral.

SquareRoot

Indigo said:

Cyclefree said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11391227/David-Blunkett-Labour-should-bring-back-the-death-tax.html

How social care in old age is paid for is a tricky question. But the way this is presented it looks as if Labour want to tax your house when you're alive and working, tax it when you're a pensioner and not working and tax it again when you're dead - assuming there's anything left.

Blunkett asks a reasonable question when he says why should the children of homeowners in the South East win the lottery when their parent die. But the answer is not that they are winning the lottery but rather that any inheritance - and remember that 40% of it will be taxed before they get it anyway (the income to buy it also having been taxed and any improvements having paid VAT as well) - is probably the only way any of those children will be able to buy their own homes or, even, at this rate find somewhere to rent.

Labour do give the impression that all they are interested in doing is taking as much of your earnings and savings as they can lay their hands on.

Its disingenuous cant anyway. The children didn't hit the jackpot, their parents invested large amounts of money in the jackpot, just as if they had put money in a savings account or trust fund for their offspring, and with a little tax planning the latter would have been completely tax free. Northern Children could inherit just as much if their parents decided to buy a bigger house, or invest in other types of assets.

Cameron was right.. Labour = bill somebody.

foxinsoxuk

Indigo said:

Cyclefree said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11391227/David-Blunkett-Labour-should-bring-back-the-death-tax.html

How social care in old age is paid for is a tricky question. But the way this is presented it looks as if Labour want to tax your house when you're alive and working, tax it when you're a pensioner and not working and tax it again when you're dead - assuming there's anything left.

Blunkett asks a reasonable question when he says why should the children of homeowners in the South East win the lottery when their parent die. But the answer is not that they are winning the lottery but rather that any inheritance - and remember that 40% of it will be taxed before they get it anyway (the income to buy it also having been taxed and any improvements having paid VAT as well) - is probably the only way any of those children will be able to buy their own homes or, even, at this rate find somewhere to rent.

Labour do give the impression that all they are interested in doing is taking as much of your earnings and savings as they can lay their hands on.

Its disingenuous cant anyway. The children didn't hit the jackpot, their parents invested large amounts of money in the jackpot, just as if they had put money in a savings account or trust fund for their offspring, and with a little tax planning the latter would have been completely tax free. Northern Children could inherit just as much if their parents decided to buy a bigger house, or invest in other types of assets.

The solution to excessive house prices in the South East should not be to require people to inherit. That prevents both Labour mobility and Social mobility. It also means that many will not be able to raise a deposit until they inherit in their 40's or 50's, unless Grandparents skip a generation with their wills.

A well though through building plan and market forces would be better.

Mortimer

Freggles said:

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

The Lib Dems actually seem more centrist in this election than the last, to be honest. Had there not been a coalition this time around, it would arguably be more likely on their current policy platforms.

Not that it is particularly intelligent centrism, mind - trying to shore up their dwindling liberal core vote amongst the upper echelons of the public sector wage structure (in Dorset this is junior doctors, nurses, university lecturers, the less red teachers etc) by promising to save the world nicely, not like those horrid Tories, and pay down the deficit too, more cleverly than those nasty Tories...

Peter_the_Punter

Pulpstar said:

Freggles said:

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

If it is a narrow CON win then the Lib Dems won't have enough to give them a majority, even combined.

Unless the Lib Dems beat the SNP - which I'm on at a crazy 10-1 now thanks to Coral.

But how about this, Pulpy. Con = 295, LD = 30, various motley Northern Irish Mps = say 10.

Does that work?

Indigo

foxinsoxuk said:

Indigo said:

Cyclefree said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11391227/David-Blunkett-Labour-should-bring-back-the-death-tax.html

How social care in old age is paid for is a tricky question. But the way this is presented it looks as if Labour want to tax your house when you're alive and working, tax it when you're a pensioner and not working and tax it again when you're dead - assuming there's anything left.

Blunkett asks a reasonable question when he says why should the children of homeowners in the South East win the lottery when their parent die. But the answer is not that they are winning the lottery but rather that any inheritance - and remember that 40% of it will be taxed before they get it anyway (the income to buy it also having been taxed and any improvements having paid VAT as well) - is probably the only way any of those children will be able to buy their own homes or, even, at this rate find somewhere to rent.

Labour do give the impression that all they are interested in doing is taking as much of your earnings and savings as they can lay their hands on.

Its disingenuous cant anyway. The children didn't hit the jackpot, their parents invested large amounts of money in the jackpot, just as if they had put money in a savings account or trust fund for their offspring, and with a little tax planning the latter would have been completely tax free. Northern Children could inherit just as much if their parents decided to buy a bigger house, or invest in other types of assets.

The solution to excessive house prices in the South East should not be to require people to inherit. That prevents both Labour mobility and Social mobility. It also means that many will not be able to raise a deposit until they inherit in their 40's or 50's, unless Grandparents skip a generation with their wills.

A well though through building plan and market forces would be better.

I don't disagree with that at all. I disagree with Blunkett's "Tax on people who invest money in their house rather than spend it on luxuries or down the pub". The people in the south with the expensive houses didn't get them out of thin air, they spent years grafting to pay a sodding big mortgage, while their northern colleague spent their spare money on having fun. People in the south earn money generally speaking, they therefore pay more tax, there is no excuse for that taxing that income again because they choose to put it in a house. In any case it will just push more old people to downsize their houses in later life and move the money in a trust fund or tax friendly investment vehicle.

Mortimer

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Freggles said:

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

If it is a narrow CON win then the Lib Dems won't have enough to give them a majority, even combined.

Unless the Lib Dems beat the SNP - which I'm on at a crazy 10-1 now thanks to Coral.

But how about this, Pulpy. Con = 295, LD = 30, various motley Northern Irish Mps = say 10.

Does that work?

Considering Sinn Fein will likely not take their seats, 335 looks like a decent working majority - at least till the autumn....

As much as various factions will have to hold their noses to do it, surely if Clegg keeps his seat this will be the most obviously fair coalition in media/public narrative (especially as Con on 295 likely means 1m+ more votes than anyone else). As we saw in 2010, this is hard to ignore after elections....

Financier

Listening last night to the various reports on Rotherham which in effect had become a one-party fiefdom (which also nigh controlled the police), it made me think of similar places in America where freedom of speech was/is shut down by the ruling party.

I suppose that such fiefdoms can be minimised by having PR at council level. At one time even many large town councils in England were composed mainly of independents until local politics became more focused in the late 50s and 60s.

However, political correctness for political reasons really came into noticeable being under Tony Blair, Mandelson and Campbell when they made determined efforts to control the press and other media, as well as their own party and its members.

Regarding the alleged Westminster sex-scandal, it will be harder to obtain convictions as many of those alleged in those activities are deceased, but probably did include members of the police and judiciary as well as leading local politicians.

However, the most stark comment about Rotherham last night was the lack of prosecutions for the active perpetrators especially when taking into account the number of victims involved.

I hope that the new Rotherham council commissioners will make all taxi drivers re-apply for their licences.

Mortimer

Betfair OM market is moving - Con dropped below 6 for the first time I've seen in a while....

another_richard

Sean_F said:

FPT, if Labour win Southgate, they're heading for a landslide.

Labour were ahead in Southgate in 2014.

Now add in continuing demographic change and the absence of an incumbancy bonus and Southgate is more vulnerable than Battersea, Finchley and possibly even Harrow East.

rottenborough

On the US betting front, which will hot up once GE 2015 is out of the way, I see Jeb Bush odds have halved since I took a punt on October. Now at between 5 and 7 depending on which bookmaker.

I'm also taking a close look at Scott Walker.

Peter_the_Punter

Mortimer said:

Betfair OM market is moving - Con dropped below 6 for the first time I've seen in a while....

Get stuck in. I'm a seller at that price. :-)

another_richard

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Freggles said:

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

If it is a narrow CON win then the Lib Dems won't have enough to give them a majority, even combined.

Unless the Lib Dems beat the SNP - which I'm on at a crazy 10-1 now thanks to Coral.

But how about this, Pulpy. Con = 295, LD = 30, various motley Northern Irish Mps = say 10.

Does that work?

Barely and highly vulnerable to any backbench oddball and malcontent. Plus all those who want more money for their constituency / region / issue of interest.

And what would the LibDems gain by supporting the Conservatives in that scenario ?

Kwok

Ishmael_X said:

Kwok said:

Labour have never increased their share of the vote from this point to a General Election. The mean fall in Labour's share from the 3 month line to polling day is 4.2%. The mean is the same regardless of whether they are in government or opposition.

From current polling the mean form fall would put them between 27.5% and 28% share of the vote. Majority of seats is also therefore unlikely given the SNP situation.

Unless you wish to bet against form, which occasionally works, avoid this seeming 'value.'

I am probably being picky or stupid, but how could the mean not be the same?

A rolling, how it looked this far out in previous GEs daily update would be extremely interesting if anyone has the resources to produce such a thing - a Previous Election National Intention Synopsis, one might call it.

I just mean that if you take the stat for when they're in opposition the fall in Labour's share of the vote from the 3 month point to polling day is 4.2% and this is the same as the overall mean fall of opposition + government combined.

I didn't go back to the Callaghan era but may do if I have time, although I think 35 years provides a strong enough database.

Next stat I'm going to look at if there are any effects of negative leader ratings from 3 months to polling day. But I thought I'd post up the Labour share one in case people start backing Labour from here. Labour could theoretically of course still do it, but it would be going strongly against form. The more so given the situation in Scotland. I just can't see how Labour can win now tbh. It's like backing a donkey to win the Derby.

DecrepitJohnL

rottenborough said:

On the US betting front, which will hot up once GE 2015 is out of the way, I see Jeb Bush odds have halved since I took a punt on October. Now at between 5 and 7 depending on which bookmaker.

I'm also taking a close look at Scott Walker.

Probably Bush is seen as the main beneficiary of Romney having ruled himself out. For me the question about Bush is where his extra support will come from. Surely every GOP primary voter already knows who Bush is?

Mortimer

another_richard said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Freggles said:

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

If it is a narrow CON win then the Lib Dems won't have enough to give them a majority, even combined.

Unless the Lib Dems beat the SNP - which I'm on at a crazy 10-1 now thanks to Coral.

But how about this, Pulpy. Con = 295, LD = 30, various motley Northern Irish Mps = say 10.

Does that work?

Barely and highly vulnerable to any backbench oddball and malcontent. Plus all those who want more money for their constituency / region / issue of interest.

And what would the LibDems gain by supporting the Conservatives in that scenario ?

A seemingly rather attractive prospect called government. Lib Dems sold their flagship tuition fees policy down the river for it in 2010.....

Mortimer

Peter_the_Punter said:

Mortimer said:

Betfair OM market is moving - Con dropped below 6 for the first time I've seen in a while....

Get stuck in. I'm a seller at that price. :-)

It is getting down there isn't it. Despite allegiances, if it moves much further I think I will be, too.....

Peter_the_Punter

Mortimer said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Freggles said:

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

If it is a narrow CON win then the Lib Dems won't have enough to give them a majority, even combined.

Unless the Lib Dems beat the SNP - which I'm on at a crazy 10-1 now thanks to Coral.

But how about this, Pulpy. Con = 295, LD = 30, various motley Northern Irish Mps = say 10.

Does that work?

Considering Sinn Fein will likely not take their seats, 335 looks like a decent working majority - at least till the autumn....

As much as various factions will have to hold their noses to do it, surely if Clegg keeps his seat this will be the most obviously fair coalition in media/public narrative (especially as Con on 295 likely means 1m+ more votes than anyone else). As we saw in 2010, this is hard to ignore after elections....

Thanks Morty

I deliberately chose 295 because I think any more than that and the Tories would have a sort of 'moral right' to form the next administration. They'd definitely have more votes and would be well clear of Labour, so it would just feel inequitable if Miliband were to enter Downing Street on the back of a coalition agreement, even if it were easier for him to do so than Cameron.

Would the LDs buy it though? They were badly hurt by the current coalition. Could Clegg sell it to his Party? Would he even be Leader and would the new Laeder have a mandate for it?

Probably not, imo, but not sure.

JackW

I fear the Brilliant Bedford Betting Behemoth has stumbled on this occasion.

Let us assume that both Con and Lab enjoy gains from the LibDem around the same level and thus roughly cancel out any advantage in the gap between the two. Add in a modest loss of 15 SLAB to the SNP and then we are left with Labour requiring around 30 gains in England and Wales to achieve crossover.

Such Labour gains are vanishing into the mist as the weeks pass. The bigger question might be will Labour suffer net losses and will Ed break with history in being the first Labour leader since WWII to increase their share of the poll the election after leaving office?

MikeK

Good morning.

Rude awakening for Greek hopes as ECB refuses to accept debt as funding collateral
http://www.cityam.com/208760/rude-awakening-greek-hopes?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Email&utm_campaign=ER

another_richard

Mortimer said:

another_richard said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Freggles said:

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

If it is a narrow CON win then the Lib Dems won't have enough to give them a majority, even combined.

Unless the Lib Dems beat the SNP - which I'm on at a crazy 10-1 now thanks to Coral.

But how about this, Pulpy. Con = 295, LD = 30, various motley Northern Irish Mps = say 10.

Does that work?

Barely and highly vulnerable to any backbench oddball and malcontent. Plus all those who want more money for their constituency / region / issue of interest.

And what would the LibDems gain by supporting the Conservatives in that scenario ?

A seemingly rather attractive prospect called government. Lib Dems sold their flagship tuition fees policy down the river for it in 2010.....

The joys of being in government haven't turned out to be as great as the LibDems expected.

And if they prop up the Conservatives again they'll look dangerously like the lentil casserole wing of the Conservative party.

PokerSNGpro

Regarding finchley
1) Remember how bad the polls were in the London Mayor election.
2) Barnet Council are not popular and there is anti-Tory sentiment in the area.
3) In 2010, Tories had a grade A candidate, Labour didn't even try to compete.
4) Why would Labour put a prominent candidate who has been active on host of issues be placed here when there are better options?

3/1 is a good value bet for me. If labour are active here and putting resources, knocking doors, phone banking people more than they did in 2010, then I'm going to take the price. As I know many marginals where Labour are doing nothing.

Scottish polls
Lord Ashcroft polls are deeply unreliable. For someone experienced in market research and sampling. I think its almost impossible to do telephone interviews in a city as big as Glasgow to identify what constituency people are in.

On Loughborough leaflets through my letterbox since january 1st 2015.
Conservative = 5 (2 national leaflets, 1 letter from cameron, 1 morgan leaflet/ 1newsletter)
Labour = 2 (one national attacking ukips nhs policy another targeting lib dem voters)
Liberal Democrat = 0
UKIP = 0

It's february the 5th and I think 5 leaflets from the conservative party in 5 weeks is not necessary.

rottenborough

DecrepitJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

On the US betting front, which will hot up once GE 2015 is out of the way, I see Jeb Bush odds have halved since I took a punt on October. Now at between 5 and 7 depending on which bookmaker.

I'm also taking a close look at Scott Walker.

Probably Bush is seen as the main beneficiary of Romney having ruled himself out. For me the question about Bush is where his extra support will come from. Surely every GOP primary voter already knows who Bush is?

I've pitched into Scott Walker at 5.3 on Betfair. He did well in a recent NH poll apparently and is leading in Iowa. Yet to declare a run though.

Morris_Dancer

F1: I wish I had a job like this.

Benson waffles a few hundred words about the first test and how the cars stack up. It amounts to "We don't know". Incidentally, I could've told you that, both before and after the test.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/31136827

Mood music matters more than times. And the first test is about hunting gremlins rather than pace anyway (unless you want more sponsors...).

roserees64

How many respondents in each seat for Ashworth's survey and was it internet or phone? Some seats are closer than I thought, however Labour or SNP in Scotland still means Labour in power for 5 years. The other scenarios just don't add up at all.Interesting Hallam poll, poor Nick.

rottenborough

Peter_the_Punter said:

Mortimer said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Freggles said:

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

If it is a narrow CON win then the Lib Dems won't have enough to give them a majority, even combined.

Unless the Lib Dems beat the SNP - which I'm on at a crazy 10-1 now thanks to Coral.

But how about this, Pulpy. Con = 295, LD = 30, various motley Northern Irish Mps = say 10.

Does that work?

Considering Sinn Fein will likely not take their seats, 335 looks like a decent working majority - at least till the autumn....

As much as various factions will have to hold their noses to do it, surely if Clegg keeps his seat this will be the most obviously fair coalition in media/public narrative (especially as Con on 295 likely means 1m+ more votes than anyone else). As we saw in 2010, this is hard to ignore after elections....

Thanks Morty

I deliberately chose 295 because I think any more than that and the Tories would have a sort of 'moral right' to form the next administration. They'd definitely have more votes and would be well clear of Labour, so it would just feel inequitable if Miliband were to enter Downing Street on the back of a coalition agreement, even if it were easier for him to do so than Cameron.

Would the LDs buy it though? They were badly hurt by the current coalition. Could Clegg sell it to his Party? Would he even be Leader and would the new Laeder have a mandate for it?

Probably not, imo, but not sure.

I think LibDems will go for coalition. They have taken all the pain and most of their members who were particularly outraged at the actions of the coalition have left. The remainder are hard core and will support the party. The coalition will need to be stitched together over a weekend or so after the GE - no continental style two week process here in Blighty. There will not be time to ditch Clegg and so on. Unless of course he loses Hallam.

Philip_Thompson

An 11.4% English lead means no English losses on UNS but if there is even a single SNP gain then that raises the differential between Con and Lab. This number also implies no first time incumbency boost. Finally Lab need to win much more than just one seat to catch up.

The reality is that the Conservatives will want to repeat at least that lead but will win most seats on a lower level.

Peter_the_Punter

rottenborough said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

On the US betting front, which will hot up once GE 2015 is out of the way, I see Jeb Bush odds have halved since I took a punt on October. Now at between 5 and 7 depending on which bookmaker.

I'm also taking a close look at Scott Walker.

Probably Bush is seen as the main beneficiary of Romney having ruled himself out. For me the question about Bush is where his extra support will come from. Surely every GOP primary voter already knows who Bush is?

I've pitched into Scott Walker at 5.3 on Betfair. He did well in a recent NH poll apparently and is leading in Iowa. Yet to declare a run though.

He'll run, but not sure he's huge value at that price.

JackW

another_richard said:

Mortimer said:

another_richard said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Freggles said:

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

If it is a narrow CON win then the Lib Dems won't have enough to give them a majority, even combined.

Unless the Lib Dems beat the SNP - which I'm on at a crazy 10-1 now thanks to Coral.

But how about this, Pulpy. Con = 295, LD = 30, various motley Northern Irish Mps = say 10.

Does that work?

Barely and highly vulnerable to any backbench oddball and malcontent. Plus all those who want more money for their constituency / region / issue of interest.

And what would the LibDems gain by supporting the Conservatives in that scenario ?

A seemingly rather attractive prospect called government. Lib Dems sold their flagship tuition fees policy down the river for it in 2010.....

The joys of being in government haven't turned out to be as great as the LibDems expected.

And if they prop up the Conservatives again they'll look dangerously like the lentil casserole wing of the Conservative party.

And by extension what is the point of Ukip .... apart from providing hours of fun and frolics and thus adding to the gaiety of the nation and also introducing a highly individual weather forecasting service ?

AndrewP

If you look at the list of Labours targets currently held by the Conservatives and cross reference this with Ashcrofts marginal polling it tells a story other than Labour sweeping the board. Blackpool North - Hold, Kingswood - Hold, Chester - Labour ahead by 1%, Stockton South (Labour target 7) - Labour ahead by 3% etc. There are of course a significant number of Tory seats where Labour is well (>5%) ahead, but from memory we're talking about half of the top 50 I think. They could end up just cancelling out the losses to the SNP.

chestnut

The presence of the SNP and UKIP largely negates Con to Lab thinking, except in areas immune to the charms of either of the insurgents.

That seems to be limited to areas of great 'diversity' like London and virtually nowhere else.

Floater

I know the Cleggy poll is unweighted, but wow.

Mortimer

another_richard said:

Mortimer said:

another_richard said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Freggles said:

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

If it is a narrow CON win then the Lib Dems won't have enough to give them a majority, even combined.

Unless the Lib Dems beat the SNP - which I'm on at a crazy 10-1 now thanks to Coral.

But how about this, Pulpy. Con = 295, LD = 30, various motley Northern Irish Mps = say 10.

Does that work?

Barely and highly vulnerable to any backbench oddball and malcontent. Plus all those who want more money for their constituency / region / issue of interest.

And what would the LibDems gain by supporting the Conservatives in that scenario ?

A seemingly rather attractive prospect called government. Lib Dems sold their flagship tuition fees policy down the river for it in 2010.....

The joys of being in government haven't turned out to be as great as the LibDems expected.

And if they prop up the Conservatives again they'll look dangerously like the lentil casserole wing of the Conservative party.

There is something a tiny bit hilarious about the Lib Dem's change in the past 5 years. From being the party which has always advocated coalitions to one which is increasingly wary of them, and from being the 'principled' supporters of PR to a party who may very likely be very much against it after the next election....

CD13

Financier,

"At one time even many large town councils in England were composed mainly of independents until local politics became more focused in the late 50s and 60s."

I remember that, and it makes you wonder why politics ever reared its ugly head. Definitely a retrograde step. Why should a political tribalist be better at arranging rubbish collections?

Newsnight touched upon "rotten boroughs" last night but only briefly.

Labour may recover slowly there though. They're split a little between tribalism and realism; many of their MPs see the problem. It seems to be liberals (with a small l) who hate to see their political correctness mantra being attacked. The BBC sometimes omitted the this phrase from their reports despite it being prominent in the Casey findings. It is important because it's part of an accurate diagnosis.

It gave power to a particular group and power has always corrupted.

The Kiwi's report may take some time but I suspect it will still be in the public domain before Chilcot.

AlastairMeeks

You don't often get the opportunity to bet on a coin toss at odds of 6/4.

Pulpstar

Peter_the_Punter said:

rottenborough said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

On the US betting front, which will hot up once GE 2015 is out of the way, I see Jeb Bush odds have halved since I took a punt on October. Now at between 5 and 7 depending on which bookmaker.

I'm also taking a close look at Scott Walker.

Probably Bush is seen as the main beneficiary of Romney having ruled himself out. For me the question about Bush is where his extra support will come from. Surely every GOP primary voter already knows who Bush is?

I've pitched into Scott Walker at 5.3 on Betfair. He did well in a recent NH poll apparently and is leading in Iowa. Yet to declare a run though.

He'll run, but not sure he's huge value at that price.

5.3 o_O ?!

Seems err short...

Artist

Sheffield Hallam tables
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Final-Tables-Sheff-Hallam-TTIP.pdf

Same sample size as Ashcroft as well.

Casino_Royale

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Freggles said:

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

If it is a narrow CON win then the Lib Dems won't have enough to give them a majority, even combined.

Unless the Lib Dems beat the SNP - which I'm on at a crazy 10-1 now thanks to Coral.

But how about this, Pulpy. Con = 295, LD = 30, various motley Northern Irish Mps = say 10.

Does that work?

Yes. Both parties have been trailing it. The Lib Dems are actively campaigning for a coalition as Labour's spine or the Tories heart.

It would be much looser (giving both parties freedom to vote as they liked on a wider range of measures) and time limited. The trade would be PR for local elections on a 3-line whip (no referendum) plus the votes for the EU referendum. It would've a 2-year agreement after which both parties could revisit it.

If it is a coalition I have a feeling the Lib Dems would demand work & pensions to buttress their social security credentials. The Tories would want to hang on to PM, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary.

However, my money is on a Conservative Minority.

DavidL

I am somewhat on the middle on this one which admittedly is not much use for betting purposes.

On the one hand I think it extremely likely that the tory vote will be more efficient and the Labour vote more inefficient than in 2010. UKIP will stop the tories piling up pointless majorities in their safer seats and Labour will get more votes in seats they have no chance in from people who used to vote Lib Dem tactically but now do not see a difference. So I think Mike is overstating the level of lead the tories need to hold their existing seats.

On the other hand I still agree with him that the market is being distorted by enthusiastic and well heeled Tory supporters voting with their hearts and not their heads. The question at the moment is not whether the tories need to be 11.4% ahead or 8% ahead for the status quo. The question remains whether they will be ahead at all. I think they will but that it will be close giving a significant swing to Labour from 2010.

Will that swing be enough to make Labour the largest party? If Scotland was doing its normal the answer would be a nailed on yes. But the potential scale of Labour losses in Scotland could just tip the balance the other way. Overall I think Mike is right that Labour most seats is value at the moment but maybe not quite as much value as he seems to think.

AlastairMeeks

FPT I've touted Labour at 3/1 in Finchley & Golders Green for some time. I mentioned it here, among other places:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/testing-boundaries-1-conservatives-vs.html

Pulpstar

antifrank said:

You don't often get the opportunity to bet on a coin toss at odds of 6/4.

I prefer betting on 1-3 shots at 5-4, or 8-11 shots at 15-8 or 6-5 shots at 3-1 though

DavidL

antifrank said:

You don't often get the opportunity to bet on a coin toss at odds of 6/4.

God I refresh and find you have said what took me 4 paragraphs in just under a line. Bah!

Mortimer

Peter_the_Punter said:

Mortimer said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Freggles said:

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

If it is...
Unless the Lib Dems beat the SNP - which I'm on at a crazy 10-1 now thanks to Coral.

But how about this, Pulpy. Con = 295, LD = 30, various motley Northern Irish Mps = say 10.

Does that work?

Considering Sinn Fein will likely not take their seats, 335 looks like a decent working majority - at least till the autumn....

As much as various factions will have to hold their noses to do it, surely if Clegg keeps his seat this will be the most obviously fair coalition in media/public narrative (especially as Con on 295 likely means 1m+ more votes than anyone else). As we saw in 2010, this is hard to ignore after elections....

Thanks Morty

I deliberately chose 295 because I think any more than that and the Tories would have a sort of 'moral right' to form the next administration. They'd definitely have more votes and would be well clear of Labour, so it would just feel inequitable if Miliband were to enter Downing Street on the back of a coalition agreement, even if it were easier for him to do so than Cameron.

Would the LDs buy it though? They were badly hurt by the current coalition. Could Clegg sell it to his Party? Would he even be Leader and would the new Laeder have a mandate for it?

Probably not, imo, but not sure.

I did have a feeling the 295 was pointed, PtP.

As unlikely as it seems 90 something days out from an election, realistically this is politics, and in this 295 Con + 30 LD + NI scenario I think it will come down to this: would the Liberals benefit from not being in coalition with the Blues? Especially if by choosing not to hands keys to the unpopular Ed (who, let us not forget, didn't overwhelmingly win his own leadership election). I actually wonder if they'd afterwards be more punished electorally (a la SNP-1979-90 after bringing down Callaghan's Lab govt.) by flouncing out.

Off topic - after lurking again for several months, I'm very relieved to have remembered my password. A day is a long time in PB, let alone months!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Mortimer, welcome back.

Peter_the_Punter

Mortimer said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Mortimer said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Freggles said:

There has been a lot of discussion on here about what happens in the event of a narrow LAB win (most seats) but not so much a narrow CON win.
They would presumably seek a continuation of the coalition, given the effect of the last one I'm sure the Lib Dems would extract a high price, namely

-abolition of the Bedroom Tax
-Some form of wealth or property taxation, perhaps via extra council tax bands
- House of Lords reform (as a proxy for electoral reform)

I'm not sure the Tory backwoodsmen would wear that. Tory minority government, economic ruin for a few months, vote of no confidence?

If it is...
Unless the Lib Dems beat the SNP - which I'm on at a crazy 10-1 now thanks to Coral.

But how about this, Pulpy. Con = 295, LD = 30, various motley Northern Irish Mps = say 10.

Does that work?

Considering Sinn Fein will likely not take their seats, 335 looks like a decent working majority - at least till the autumn....

As much as various factions will have to hold their noses to do it, surely if Clegg keeps his seat this will be the most obviously fair coalition in media/public narrative (especially as Con on 295 likely means 1m+ more votes than anyone else). As we saw in 2010, this is hard to ignore after elections....

Thanks Morty

I

Would the LDs buy it though? They were badly hurt by the current coalition. Could Clegg sell it to his Party? Would he even be Leader and would the new Laeder have a mandate for it?

Probably not, imo, but not sure.

I did have a feeling the 295 was pointed, PtP.

As unlikely as it seems 90 something days out from an election, realistically this is politics, and in this 295 Con + 30 LD + NI scenario I think it will come down to this: would the Liberals benefit from not being in coalition with the Blues? Especially if by choosing not to hands keys to the unpopular Ed (who, let us not forget, didn't overwhelmingly win his own leadership election). I actually wonder if they'd afterwards be more punished electorally (a la SNP-1979-90 after bringing down Callaghan's Lab govt.) by flouncing out.

Off topic - after lurking again for several months, I'm very relieved to have remembered my password. A day is a long time in PB, let alone months!

So LDs damned if they do, and damned if they don't! Some things never change.

Thanks for your thoughts. Glad you found your password.

MikeSmithson

antifrank said:

You don't often get the opportunity to bet on a coin toss at odds of 6/4.

Spot on. Great way of describing it.

TGOHF

Survation Hallam poll here

http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Final-Tables-Sheff-Hallam-TTIP.pdf

They asked the VI questions before the skewed NHS TTIP ones - which gave them the results they wanted I guess.

Kwok

PokerSNGpro said:

Betting post

Having dinner last night in London and got a very hot tip […] Sarah Sackman is going to win Finchley/Golders Green for Labour […] She is receiving lots of backing from across the constituency and has cross party support […] everyone concerned seems to want her to win.

PokerSNGpro said:

Regarding finchley

4) Why would Labour put a prominent candidate who has been active on host of issues be placed here when there are better options?

Your hot tip wasn't, erm, by any chance a hot date with the candidate?

Casino_Royale

On topic, it's incredible that we can talk about Labour 'winning' the next election when they are facing near obliteration in Scotland, and will be well behind in votes in England.

Yet they could supply the next PM of the United Kingdom. How perverse is that?

TCPoliticalBetting

JackW said:

Let us assume that both Con and Lab enjoy gains from the LibDem around the same level and thus roughly cancel out any advantage in the gap between the two. Add in a modest loss of 15 SLAB to the SNP and then we are left with Labour requiring around 30 gains in England and Wales to achieve crossover. Such Labour gains are vanishing into the mist as the weeks pass. The bigger question might be will Labour suffer net losses and will Ed break with history in being the first Labour leader since WWII to increase their share of the poll the election after leaving office?

I agree. A scenario of Con getting 5 more LD gains than Lab and SNP taking 25 SLAB seats takes the LAB E&W gains to circa 45 to achieve crossover. That starts to look like a dream.

AlastairMeeks

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, it's incredible that we can talk about Labour 'winning' the next election when they are facing near obliteration in Scotland, and will be well behind in votes in England.

Yet they could supply the next PM of the United Kingdom. How perverse is that?

They could be well behind in votes and seats, and supply the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

eg

Con 285
Lab 270
LD 30
SNP 40

Those are entirely plausible numbers, but the most stable combination (apart from a grand coalition, which I put in the category of Not Going To Happen) is Labour + LD + SNP.

Peter_the_Punter

antifrank said:

FPT I've touted Labour at 3/1 in Finchley & Golders Green for some time. I mentioned it here, among other places:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/testing-boundaries-1-conservatives-vs.html

Hmmm....now that I know this bet has the Antifrank Seal Of Approval, that rather changes things.

However, I sense the mood music is changing and Tory buyers are getting bolder. It will be 7/2 soon. I can wait.

Pulpstar

£16.67 (Thanks Hills ) @ 3-1 Labour Golders Green,

lay of £14.20 for the Tories it is then (@1.71) !

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Antifrank, if the Lib Dems get wiped out in Scotland, then allying with the SNP would not exactly endear them with English voters, one suspects.

Plus, we'd have a PM from a party with fewer MPs and probably far fewer votes (especially in England) than another. That is entirely legitimate under the system we have, but then getting into bed with the SNP makes the potential for constitutional crisis very high.

That said, I don't think the SNP will go for a formal coalition under any circumstances, perhaps excepting Scotland getting the moon on a stick, paid for by the English. Easier for them to vote on a case-by-case basis.

If they refuse formal coalition or supply-and-confidence, then those numbers make it either Con-Lib 2, or a second election.

AlastairMeeks

Anyway, I've followed our host on this. The current price on Labour most seats makes no sense at all.

Peter_the_Punter

Completely off thread, I heard some gossip that Clegg and Miliband dislike each other on a personal level. Never heard that before. Any truth in it?

Might affect the coalition arithmetic. The Clegg/Brown hostility certainly did.

TCPoliticalBetting

Peter_the_Punter said:

antifrank said:

FPT I've touted Labour at 3/1 in Finchley & Golders Green for some time. I mentioned it here, among other places:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/testing-boundaries-1-conservatives-vs.html

Hmmm....now that I know this bet has the Antifrank Seal Of Approval, that rather changes things.
However, I sense the mood music is changing and Tory buyers are getting bolder. It will be 7/2 soon. I can wait.

I cannot see Labour piling up votes in the Golders Green area.

Pulpstar

antifrank said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, it's incredible that we can talk about Labour 'winning' the next election when they are facing near obliteration in Scotland, and will be well behind in votes in England.

Yet they could supply the next PM of the United Kingdom. How perverse is that?

They could be well behind in votes and seats, and supply the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

eg

Con 285
Lab 270
LD 30
SNP 40

Those are entirely plausible numbers, but the most stable combination (apart from a grand coalition, which I put in the category of Not Going To Happen) is Labour + LD + SNP.

Strategic thinking

Seeing as Scottish Labour were talking up voting SNP as putting Dave into Government, isn't a far more plausible scenario that if Labour holds on against the odds in Scotland then a Lib-Lab coalition becomes far more likely actually with ...

Scotland frozen out.

This could be an angle for the SNP to go on. - A Government of the Red and Yellow Tories

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Punter, there was a railway anecdote a few weeks ago.

Miliband happened to see Clegg at a station and went to say hello, on the basis it'd be rude not to. Clegg had a slightly huffy reply, something like "I don't think you could be any ruder about me" and was unimpressed. Reportedly.

Of course, if Clegg loses his seat, that won't matter.

Floater

Cyclefree said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11391227/David-Blunkett-Labour-should-bring-back-the-death-tax.html

How social care in old age is paid for is a tricky question. But the way this is presented it looks as if Labour want to tax your house when you're alive and working, tax it when you're a pensioner and not working and tax it again when you're dead - assuming there's anything left.

Blunkett asks a reasonable question when he says why should the children of homeowners in the South East win the lottery when their parent die. But the answer is not that they are winning the lottery but rather that any inheritance - and remember that 40% of it will be taxed before they get it anyway (the income to buy it also having been taxed and any improvements having paid VAT as well) - is probably the only way any of those children will be able to buy their own homes or, even, at this rate find somewhere to rent.

Labour do give the impression that all they are interested in doing is taking as much of your earnings and savings as they can lay their hands on.

Sometimes it feels like they want to punish those who work hard and are responsible.

TheScreamingEagles

Peter_the_Punter said:

Completely off thread, I heard some gossip that Clegg and Miliband dislike each other on a personal level. Never heard that before. Any truth in it?

Might affect the coalition arithmetic. The Clegg/Brown hostility certainly did.

Absolutely detest each other.

When Ed was in Sheffield a few weeks ago, saw Nick at the train station, went up to him and the following exchange took place

Ed: I thought it would be rude not to say hello

Nick: I think you've been rude enough about me already.

The enmity is because Nick in 2010 said the price for doing a deal with Labour was getting rid of Gordon Brown, and Ed also thinks Nick betrayed progressive politics by propping up the Tories for five year.

TheScreamingEagles

On topic, the direction of travel in this market is astonishing.

TheScreamingEagles

Looking at the Survation Sheffield Hallam poll, they've not past vote weighted, but I've had a gander table 9, which looks at the past voting intention of the sample.

They say 33.5% of the sample voted Lib Dem in 2010, by my reckoning close to 40% of the electorate in Sheffield voted Lib Dem in 2010.

(Before Mark Senior and others tell me Clegg polled 53% in 2010, I'm talking about as a percentage of the total electorate, including non voters)

So in a sample that had nearly 6/7% less Lib Dems than it should, I'm not surprised by the fact Labour are winning by 10%

TCPoliticalBetting

Peter_the_Punter said:

Completely off thread, I heard some gossip that Clegg and Miliband dislike each other on a personal level. Never heard that before. Any truth in it?

Might affect the coalition arithmetic. The Clegg/Brown hostility certainly did.

Cable is in contact with Miliband. Farron is really a socialist, so no problem for Labour.

Peter_the_Punter

TheScreamingEagles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Completely off thread, I heard some gossip that Clegg and Miliband dislike each other on a personal level. Never heard that before. Any truth in it?

Might affect the coalition arithmetic. The Clegg/Brown hostility certainly did.

Absolutely detest each other.

When Ed was in Sheffield a few weeks ago, saw Nick at the train station, went up to him and the following exchange took place

Ed: I thought it would be rude not to say hello

Nick: I think you've been rude enough about me already.

The enmity is because Nick in 2010 said the price for doing a deal with Labour was getting rid of Gordon Brown, and Ed also thinks Nick betrayed progressive politics by propping up the Tories for five year.

Thanks TSE and Morris Dancer.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Looking at the Survation Sheffield Hallam poll, they've not past vote weighted, but I've had a gander table 9, which looks at the past voting intention of the sample.

They say 33.5% of the sample voted Lib Dem in 2010, by my reckoning close to 40% of the electorate in Sheffield voted Lib Dem in 2010.

(Before Mark Senior and others tell me Clegg polled 53% in 2010, I'm talking about as a percentage of the total electorate, including non voters)

So in a sample that had nearly 6/7% less Lib Dems than it should, I'm not surprised by the fact Labour are winning by 10%

It's statistically tricky to get such a sample I'd have thought ?

Btw Is Dore, Totley & Fulwood the Lib Dem/Con area and Crookes, Stannington Labour with Ecclesall mixed the further you get from the Waitrose at the bottom of the road the more Lib Dem ?

Tissue_Price

OGH certainly has the polls on his side at these prices; indeed I said last night that 1.69 looked overdone for now.

But what I would note most from the last couple of weeks is the impression that Labour think they're going to lose. Both the left & the right are advocating different policy positions, and leadership bids are being talked up.

Con Minority @ 11/2 with William Hill looks a value punt.

Morris_Dancer

Election day registration sounds bonkers to me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31133406

stodge

Morning all

As an LD (there's me, the guy in Motherwell and Nick Clegg left apparently), my view has long been the Party won't go into Coalition-type environment with the Conservatives unless the election is clearly an endorsement of the existing arrangement. IF the LDs lose half their seats and the Conservatives fall back as well, that couldn't be regarded as endorsement.

Could the Party support a minority Conservative administration ? The numbers don't look there for that so it looks as though the SNP will be where the LDs were in 2010 except they "may" have the option of "supporting" (in whatever form) a minority Conservative or minority Labour Government.

If we take the SNP at face value, the Conservatives are going to need every seat they can get as only the DUP look obvious allies and I doubt UKIP having enough seats to make any difference.

It's almost de rigueur on here to write off Labour's prospects but London looks promising and other cities and towns may yet deliver some key marginals. The Ashcroft numbers on Monday showed up to 45 Labour gains in England and therefore having the duopoly parties at around 280 each looks about right.

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Looking at the Survation Sheffield Hallam poll, they've not past vote weighted, but I've had a gander table 9, which looks at the past voting intention of the sample.

They say 33.5% of the sample voted Lib Dem in 2010, by my reckoning close to 40% of the electorate in Sheffield voted Lib Dem in 2010.

(Before Mark Senior and others tell me Clegg polled 53% in 2010, I'm talking about as a percentage of the total electorate, including non voters)

So in a sample that had nearly 6/7% less Lib Dems than it should, I'm not surprised by the fact Labour are winning by 10%

It's statistically tricky to get such a sample I'd have thought ?

Btw Is Dore, Totley & Fulwood the Lib Dem/Con area and Crookes, Stannington Labour with Ecclesall mixed the further you get from the Waitrose at the bottom of the road the more Lib Dem ?

Yes, that's why doing constituency polling is so difficult.

Yes those areas are the Lib Dem bit.

Stannington was in the Hillsborough constituency prior to 2010, so it's not Sheffield Hallam proper, but Labouresque.

Eccleshall stayed Lib Dem comfortably in 2012, it is somewhere I expect the Greens to do well in May.

Casino_Royale

antifrank said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, it's incredible that we can talk about Labour 'winning' the next election when they are facing near obliteration in Scotland, and will be well behind in votes in England.

Yet they could supply the next PM of the United Kingdom. How perverse is that?

They could be well behind in votes and seats, and supply the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

eg

Con 285
Lab 270
LD 30
SNP 40

Those are entirely plausible numbers, but the most stable combination (apart from a grand coalition, which I put in the category of Not Going To Happen) is Labour + LD + SNP.

I put any coalition involving the SNP in the not going to happen category. On the numbers you cite we'd either have Con Minority, with temporary time-limited LD acquiescence, or some sort of very loose (confidence and supply) or a short-term loose coalition. Both give an absolute majority sans Sinn Fein. 2nd election inside 18-24 months perfectly possible.

The Lib Dems are simply not going to hop out of bed with the Tories and straight into bed with Labour when they've been wiped out in Scotland, lost every national vote, apart from Wales, and are clearly behind in seats.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

isam

People that say 'the trend is your friend' in betting are probably losers that bookies love

The reason bookies love everyone backing a favourite is because it is the obvious winner, they get to massively overcharge for it...

People who follow the trend are bookies favourite clients, people who swim against the tide are generally winners

Peter_the_Punter

stodge said:

Morning all

As an LD (there's me, the guy in Motherwell and Nick Clegg left apparently), my view has long been the Party won't go into Coalition-type environment with the Conservatives unless the election is clearly an endorsement of the existing arrangement. IF the LDs lose half their seats and the Conservatives fall back as well, that couldn't be regarded as endorsement.

Could the Party support a minority Conservative administration ? The numbers don't look there for that so it looks as though the SNP will be where the LDs were in 2010 except they "may" have the option of "supporting" (in whatever form) a minority Conservative or minority Labour Government.

If we take the SNP at face value, the Conservatives are going to need every seat they can get as only the DUP look obvious allies and I doubt UKIP having enough seats to make any difference.

It's almost de rigueur on here to write off Labour's prospects but London looks promising and other cities and towns may yet deliver some key marginals. The Ashcroft numbers on Monday showed up to 45 Labour gains in England and therefore having the duopoly parties at around 280 each looks about right.

All very Stodge-like, all very sensible.

You going to Cheltenham this year?

MikeK

Robert Kimbell ‏@RedHotSquirrel 5m5 minutes ago
583,000 people immigrated to the #UK in the year ending June 2014. It was 502,000 the year before. ONS.

AlastairMeeks

Casino_Royale said:

antifrank said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, it's incredible that we can talk about Labour 'winning' the next election when they are facing near obliteration in Scotland, and will be well behind in votes in England.

Yet they could supply the next PM of the United Kingdom. How perverse is that?

They could be well behind in votes and seats, and supply the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

eg

Con 285
Lab 270
LD 30
SNP 40

Those are entirely plausible numbers, but the most stable combination (apart from a grand coalition, which I put in the category of Not Going To Happen) is Labour + LD + SNP.

I put any coalition involving the SNP in the not going to happen category. On the numbers you cite we'd either have Con Minority, with temporary time-limited LD acquiescence, or some sort of very loose (confidence and supply) or a short-term loose coalition. Both give an absolute majority sans Sinn Fein. 2nd election inside 18-24 months perfectly possible.

The Lib Dems are simply not going to hop out of bed with the Tories and straight into bed with Labour when they've been wiped out in Scotland, lost every national vote, apart from Wales, and are clearly behind in seats.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

I'm not suggesting a coalition. I expect a Labour minority government in those circumstances, with confidence and supply from the Lib Dems and the SNP. It would be grisly for all concerned, of course.

AndrewP

The Lib Dems are already going to lose their constituencies that really don't like the Tories, what would they have to lose from propping them up again? The seats they will retain in 2015 presumably don't mind them being in a coalition with the Tories. Some people were surprised at what happened in 2010 because after decades of talk about LIB-LAB pacts they had forgotten that most Lib Dem seats are in places that would be Conservative if the Lib Dems didn't exist, Bath, Cheltenham, North Norfolk, Westmorland, Eastleigh etc etc. The question to my mind is whether CON+LD will be able to get enough seats between them.

stodge

TheScreamingEagles said:

Absolutely detest each other.

When Ed was in Sheffield a few weeks ago, saw Nick at the train station, went up to him and the following exchange took place

Ed: I thought it would be rude not to say hello

Nick: I think you've been rude enough about me already.

The enmity is because Nick in 2010 said the price for doing a deal with Labour was getting rid of Gordon Brown, and Ed also thinks Nick betrayed progressive politics by propping up the Tories for five year.

Indeed, the personal relationship between Clegg and Cameron was a key foundation of the Coalition - it was evident in Opposition for those willing to look. The strong personal hostility felt toward Nick Clegg by many on the Labour side probably precludes any meaningful deal but I suspect IF the Conservatives prevail, relations between a post-Miliband Labour Party and a post-Clegg Liberal Democrats will improve considerably.

Cyclefree

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

I heard an interview with the Lowell Goddard, the NZ judge appointed to head the new CSE inquiry. The first thing I hope she does is to issue an order to all public authorities to preserve all relevant documents, in whatever form they exist.

One would hope so, Cyclefree. It seems like a good appointment. Congratulations to Ms May, even if it did take her three goes to get it right.

And to continue on this cheerful note, Isam linked us to this ineresting iittle piece in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11391319/Four-Westminster-child-sex-abuse-files-unearthed-in-Whitehall-archives.html

Seems all that was hidden was not actually lost. Maybe somewhere somebody has another copy of the Dickens file.

And finally, did you not get my Vanilla email re Cheltenham? I can send it again if you are interested in meeting up with a few other PBers and me who congregate there annually.

I did get it and I replied. I will check my mail again tonight. Sometimes - as my children are very fond of telling me - I can be a techno nitwit.

I am most certainly interested in meeting up at Cheltenham, fraudulent bankers permitting.......!