Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB most seats slips to just a 40% chance making it the bes
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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.'
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Many will be in safe Labour seats and will feel free to signal their dissatisfaction in a harmless way by voting Green
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?
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 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.
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.
Unless the Lib Dems beat the SNP - which I'm on at a crazy 10-1 now thanks to Coral.
A well though through building plan and market forces would be better.
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...
Does that work?
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....
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.
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.
I'm also taking a close look at Scott Walker.
And what would the LibDems gain by supporting the Conservatives in that scenario ?
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.
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.
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?
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
And if they prop up the Conservatives again they'll look dangerously like the lentil casserole wing of the Conservative party.
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.
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...).
The reality is that the Conservatives will want to repeat at least that lead but will win most seats on a lower level.
That seems to be limited to areas of great 'diversity' like London and virtually nowhere else.
"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.
Seems err short...
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Final-Tables-Sheff-Hallam-TTIP.pdf
Same sample size as Ashcroft as well.
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.
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.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/testing-boundaries-1-conservatives-vs.html
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!
Thanks for your thoughts. Glad you found your password.
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.
Yet they could supply the next PM of the United Kingdom. How perverse is that?
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.
However, I sense the mood music is changing and Tory buyers are getting bolder. It will be 7/2 soon. I can wait.
lay of £14.20 for the Tories it is then (@1.71) !
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.
Might affect the coalition arithmetic. The Clegg/Brown hostility certainly did.
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
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.
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.
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%
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 ?
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31133406
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.
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.
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.
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
You going to Cheltenham this year?
583,000 people immigrated to the #UK in the year ending June 2014. It was 502,000 the year before. ONS.
I am most certainly interested in meeting up at Cheltenham, fraudulent bankers permitting.......!