Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why we need more than the basic win market for the Oldham b
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why we need more than the basic win market for the Oldham by-election
The panel above shows the latest position on Betfair in the Oldham by-election. Just about all the money is being wagered on Labour and it is very difficult to see any betting interest in going against that.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That being said, I would be very surprised if the new three party Leftist coalition will manage to stay in power long: there are very wide disagreements (NATO good! NATO an evil cold war body, etc.)
New Portuguese elections by June I'd reckon, which will likely result in another mess. The danger for the second placed PS is that if they don't rule out a coalition with the Communist CDU they are likely to haemorrhage moderate votes to PaF. On the other hand, if they do rule one out, then their more left wing supporters will go to BE or PaF.
As an aside, one thing that has not yet received enough attention is that there are a large number of places in Europe where there could be no workable coalition post the next set of elections. Take Germany: CDU/CSU + AfD + FDP is around 50%, and Der Linke + Greens + SPD is a little below. And could the FDP and the AfD serve together? And CDU/CSU + FDP is far from enough. Der Linke and AfD share some European views, but not much else. Another grand coalition there?
It's a similar story in Ireland, where there are four parties with substantial shares, plus a number of independents. Likewise the Netherlands.
The only place where it increasingly doesn't seem true is Spain, where the Centre Right Citizen's Party is now well ahead of Podemos and has even been ahead of the Socialists in three of the last 10 polls. Spain looks almost certain to have a PP + Citizen's coalition post elections.
Or in Spain: is the PP in first on 31.3% or 3% behind the Socialists on 23.5%? Is PSOE in first place on 26.3%, or third on 18.2%? And Citizen's: are they just 1% off first place on 22.5%, or are they in fourth place on 15.2%? Only Podemos seems to have consistent scores, somewhere in the low teens.
It will also be interesting to see if they can maintain their second place. If they do then the perception of a loss of momentum since the election might be halted.
As for the Lib Dems, I agree that they are more likely than not to save their deposit but not that much more likely. If a bookie were offering decent odds on this I would be tempted.
And antifrank didn't say the staff member was impolite - just that s/he refused to help.
The issue is the level of staff they have at airports. It's profit maximising, but it doesn't give them the scope to get information if something goes wrong as they are busy with their day jobs.
It does indeed appear that the places below Labour's probable first will be the more interesting side to the by-election.
Are you suggesting I'm a Kipper?
Do you have any airmiles? The most efficient way to use them is to buy any particular cabin and then upgrade with airmiles. Gives you miles (!) more value from them.
If so, I phrased whatever I said clumsily. Although I do think we should leave the EU, I am not a Kipper.
Wider chairs, with 2x vs 3x on the aisles and 4x vs 6x in the middle. Slightly better food (not that it really matters), more leg room and less imposition from people in front lowering their chairs.
On long haul I'd usually fly premium economy if I'm paying myself, but unless I can use miles don't think business is worth the extra cost.
Ultimately, of course, it all comes down to how much you think avoiding x hours of manageable discomfort in economy is worth to you.
edit: if you can (and they may not allow you to book seats unless you are Gold as well) then get a bulkhead seat - miles more room, although the table is a little fiddly
O/T - caught isam's query last thread about whether there are movies that show gay people without making it the big issue of the film. I don't know, but it prompts me to recommend Patrick Gale's books. Only read two so far (The Facts of Life and A Place Called Winter), but although they aren't the sort of action-packed/SF books that I usually read, they have a gentle precision of character depiction that makes you warm even to the (relative) villains. The relevance is that an afterword to the former book casually mentions the fact that Gale is married to another man. Some gay people turn up in the book and there is are some sexual scenes of both varieties, but it's by no means the central theme, merely something that character X does before doing something else. It didn't occur to me to assume anything about the writer.
I think that's a healthy development, and it'd be good to see it in movies too, in the same way as movies with Muslims which aren't mostly about wrestling with Islam in western society. Script-writers tend to focus unhelpfully on religious or sexual difference in movies because they make obvious dramatic points (Homeland, which I admit to enjoying, is particularly prone to it).
They are hoping for at least a double digit share of the vote.
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=1b8c27812b5639c97eae8a815&id=0ca5f24f3e&e=d50c4c3e1b
Any effort above zero in a seat should produce better vote shares.
When I first read your comment I thought 'Whoa! Nick P thinks Rod Liddle is a centrist?" Blimey :-)
1) The moderate Labour vote appalled by the election of Corbyn
2) The one nation Tory vote appalled by George Osborne's war on the poor
Government needs to get out of the way.
When I had a Gold Card with Delta, they gave me 3 upgrades to domestic First in the US. Nice cosy armchairs - much better than the shorthaul business class offered in Europe.
Best ever was Business Class on an Emirates A380.
Garth Harkness 1,589 3.7 -15.4
Mark Alcock 8,193 19.1 -2.1
Even if they only get to their national polling level they will put on 4 or 5%.
Crewe & Nantwich was one, but I think Glasgow East and Bradford Somewhere-or-other were more recent.
Greens unlikely to have a good ground game. LDs will probably do a good job of getting out the voters who voted for them last time, which in a 30-40% turnout by-election will see them score 6-7%.
They may also attract a few non-Corbynite Labour voters, but that will be minor compared to simply doing a better job of getting their vote out.
I'd be very surprised to see them do that well. I think the fabled Liberal Democrat by-election machine of the past has now faded away.
The vast majority of people simply won't consider them as an option no matter how many activists they put in place.
Politics in all but 50 or so seats is becoming pointless
Edited extra bit: considering a very long odds bet. Trying to decide if it would be the action of a drunken buffoon, or worth a look.
LDs get 100% of their vote out, while turnout is down 50%. (That takes you to 7.2%)
LDs get 1-in-10 of their voters from 2010 who didn't vote for them in 2015. (To 9.1%)
LDs get 1-in-20 2010 Labour voters. (To 10.9%)
Will that happen? Probably not, but they aren't outrageous assumptions to make, and if they flood the constituency with activists they are certainly achievable.
Also, by lunchtime on the day of the election, turnout will be described as "steady" by at least one media outlet.
A win would be phenomenal, but it is largely about getting the machine working again.
So it makes sense for Mike to ramp up their efforts, but success is still largely undefined.
I wonder how much money they have and how long they can keep it up.
Anything else? I want strong thrird and fourth parties, but it's hard to see where it's coming from, and if the LDs don't significantly recover or uk build on all those second places, 2020 will be no better.
A bad result for Labour and they might topple Corbyn.
Plus I like reminding Kippers they've never won a Westminster seat without a defector incumbent.
None of that comes remotely close to what would be needed to convince me to stay.
From 1987 to 2005, the Labour Party took the space that had been the SDP's. It has now vacated it.
Will the LDs fill it? I have no idea. But the idea that there isn't an under-served centre-left space is ridiculous.
It's a December by-election. No-one will get excited. The party that is able to drag its vote out will win.
Labour probably doesn't have great voter ID because it is a safe seat, so the result will be closer than a GE, but by sheer dent of numbers it will win.
All Pols will claim significance, but there really wont be any. For example, I suspect the Tories will do poorly, but that will be because their voters are largely satisfied.
1) Please be nice to the Pound.
2) Please be nice to the City of London
3) Please be nice and let us not give benefits to migrants for 4 years
4) Please don't use the words "ever closer union" again, anything else with the same meaning is fine of course.
But then the Labour Party decided to vacate the Centre Left and created the space for the Alliance.
I'm not saying the LDs will bounce back. Plenty of parties have disappeared. But right now, there are a lot of (formerly Labour) centre left voters and activists who loathe the Corbynistas.
Guess what happened at the election ?
It is, after all, December. And the seat is much, much less competitive than OE&S.
People with a right-wing view who think Cameron's Conservatives are too in the centre have UKIP to move to. There are plenty of people with a left-wing view for whom Corbyn's Labour are too far off to the left - we have some vocal ones on here. It's quite possible that the Lib Dems will be able to tailor their message to appeal to these people.
Yes, it'll be difficult given the trouncing they got (unfairly, I believe) for the coalition. But it's certainly possible, and they've done it before.
On a December election, it could be a pretty warm December election though! That might help?
Anyway, must be off.
Britain no longer part of ‘ever-closer’ union?
Although David Cameron insists that the UK should no longer be bound by 'ever-closer union', he is unlikely to obtain a unilateral opt-out. It is realistic to expect the UK's EU partners to include the June 2014 European council statement in a legally binding protocol that in due course would become part of the treaties. They might also consider an addendum that the UK does not see its commitment to membership of the EU (and all its treaty obligations) as extending to the goal of ‘ever-closer’ union.
Securing fair treatment between the ‘euro-ins’ and ‘euro-outs’
Strengthening safeguards to ensure fair treatment of countries outside the eurozone has become a key British renegotiation objective. The European council might adopt a declaration of principles addressing the reality of an increasingly two-tier EU and providing for an ‘emergency brake’. However, like the West Lothian question, this would immediately raise a number of difficult, if not intractable, issues. Settling them will not be possible in Cameron’s timetable for renegotiation.
A new deal for Britain on EU migration?
EU-wide reform is necessary to bolster support for European integration, but Cameron must tread carefully in any attempt to win UK-only 'fixes'. His flagship demand – a four-year wait before migrants can claim in work benefits – appears to contradict existing European treaty obligations. Buying other member states’ consent for treaty amendments will have a price. If Cameron is to secure a new deal on migration then Britain may have to show greater sense of collective responsibility, especially in light of the refugee crisis.
Achieving a more competitive EU
The Juncker commission's reforming zeal should aid Cameron in demonstrating progress over the EU's role as a source of 'jobs, growth and innovation'. The commission has already produced ambitious plans to take forward the projects of the digital single market and capital markets union. The challenge for Cameron is on how to take advantage of this new reforming mood without critical difficulties arising from a clash of misconceptions within his own party.
Ashcroft tended to get much closer to the real result in terms of Con-Lab gap than Survation, and almost without fail Labour were overstated, Tories understated.
The established error trend of each particular pollster is often the biggest clue to the real outcome.
It's a metric that is worth watching across the parliament.
Another example is that the Con-Lab gap was commonly understated by 5.5% at the Euro 2014 elections by many internet pollsters, to the detriment of the Tories.
It really should not have been a surprise that the error was repeated in May 2015.
As we both know that didn't translate into votes but to suggest kippers a tiny bunch of fruitcakes (as you frequently do) is absurd.
They only got c.11-12% in 1997GE and 2001GE (when they were by no means a spent force at the national level) so if they matched that they'd be doing very well indeed.
Personally, I can see any result between 2%-8%.
So long as the voters see UKIP as the most extreme, least fit to govern and with candidates that hold extreme/racist views, UKIP will struggle under FPTP.
Is why the Tories made 24 net gains and UKIP just one.
But you stay in the playground.
Snowball in hell.
@Conorpope: I regret supporting an EU referendum. I didn't realise it would be so boring.