Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Richard Nabavi on Emmanuel Macron’s Cohabitation Conundrum
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Richard Nabavi on Emmanuel Macron’s Cohabitation Conundrum
If the polls are to be believed, in a few weeks’ time Emmanuel Macron will be president of France, having easily seen off Marine Le Pen in the second round of voting. Pundits will opine that populism has been defeated, and chaos averted. This will be a premature verdict.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
F1: P3 to go ahead on time in 10 mins, after yesterday's Shanghai smog shambles.
It will also be interesting to see whether the apparent shift in voters is also reflected amongst the business community, which could deliver valuable financial help to the LibDems, who have always been the poor relations when it comes to financial backers?
But that was really interesting David, thank you.
And if you look at the cold hard figures, it is likely that there will be far more gains than losses. How many SW Remain seats are there with LD second to Tory by less than 10k votes?
I know it is Saturday and that David Herdson usually does the morning slot but he's not here today
Is such a thing even possible in France?
Small print:
https://extra.bet365.com/promotions/en/horse-racing/grand-national-money-back-offer
There are also, as you correctly state, very few tight marginals for the yellows to exploit. I don't have a number under the current boundaries, but I did look at the projections for the new boundaries late last year and IIRC there were about 15 seats vulnerable to the Lib Dems on a swing of 5% or less in the whole country, i.e. Including some notionally held by Labour and the SNP as well as the Tories.
As things currently stand, the Lib Dems will be doing well to get to 20 seats at the next GE. If they aspire to get anywhere close to their 2010 result then they need to at least double their national vote share, something that currently appears unlikely.
The Ld by election machine is fearsome. The GE machine, not so much.
On the subject of the LDs - all the polls indicate that they are not rampaging through the landing, casting down all before them. The polls can be wrong. But what is the biggest miss in modern political polling? How many extra % could they really have?
The long-term economic implications of Brexit will only just becoming apparent in 2020.
However, I think it's clear that Conservative losses among supporters who are pro EU are strongly outweighed by gains in the rest of the electorate, although the situation will be different in individual seats.
In a sense he may be helped by facing Le Pen in the final round. For one thing he should win a crushing mandate. For another the point to be made to the socialists or even republicans is... Work with me or next time it really will be Le Pen.
It's always nice to see people get up early on a Saturday morning just to tell everyone how crap the LDs are and how they won't win any seats at an election that's still three years away.
Realistically, and with the forthcoming local contests in mind, my expectations are that the party will move forward and make a net gain in seats and vote share but that won't tell a more complex story.
In some traditional areas of strength, the party will make strong gains and recover much, if not all, of the ground lost in the Coalition years. In other areas of traditional strength, the party won't do so well. These will be areas where the activist base was hollowed out under the Coalition and has not recovered while Conservatives (and others) have become established.
In areas of previous weakness, there will be surprising progress. This will be where post-2015 activists have set up and organised and worked divisions and wards where there was not only no previous LD record of activity but very little activity of any kind and the activist base of other parties has atrophied.
Finally, there will be substantial areas of inactivity in the past and continued inactivity where there may or may not be candidates.
I'm pleased to see strong slates of LD candidates in many counties and other authorities and giving people the option to vote for the party (especially where that didn't exist locally before) is to be welcomed but I would no more encourage people to use May's votes to extrapolate a GE than the week's set of local by-elections.
It's a step on a long road of recovery and re-engagement for the party. Getting people to be even aware the Party sill exists is a big task - the Coalition years have been airbrushed out of history by subsequent events and that's not wholly unwelcome for the LDs in some regard - but every seat won and every vote gained or recovered is a step up the hill. As in the past, the Party has, for better for worse, a USP which is of course mocked and deliberately misrepresented by opponents but that's politics and the party has to live with that.
Thanks to Richard n.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/oxford-academics-house-prices-can-keep-rising-government-backs/
I actually think Fillon is not only the value bet, but I think he will make it into the last 2! He might beat Le Pen or Macron to 2nd place. Macron is not nailed on. DYOR.
@Pulpstar highlighted some tips on the last thread, along with a genuinely good promo from Bet365.
My guess is that the traditional parties are much weaker and more vulnerable than they appear. If only the SDP had had the option of running for President all those years ago....
F1: interesting grid. Wet weather tomorrow (90% chance, apparently) complicates things. Will be a while before the markets awaken.
Mr. Royale, not a tip as such, but I was asked to put a small sum on One For Arthur (think that was the name, has Arthur in it, anyway).
Fillon is holding on well, and Melenchon has surged, both on 19% in latest poll. Macron and Le Pen both falling back to 23%. Could be anyone's game to make it in into round 2 (I still think it will be Macron/Le Pen, but the trend is moving away from them both).
Post qualifying, I took the opportunity to close my position on Hamilton for the championship (at a profit). Ferrari look interestingly close, and if their race pace proves superior, a Vettel victory will likely see his championship odds plummet. Conversely, a Hamilton victory won't I think move the odds greatly.
Your thoughts for the race ?
One for Arthur
Saphir Du Rheu
More of That
It's worth remembering the Conservatives lost over 300 seats in 2013 - these weren't to the LDs but were mainly to UKIP and Labour. Getting the UKIP seats back is a given but the big question is the potential for Conservative gains from Labour and whether these will be enough to offset losses to the LDs.
Messrs Rallings, Thrasher and Curtice generally know what they're talking about - I suspect the Conservative figure will be nearer neutral or a smaller net gain tally (20 rather than 50 or higher). The Labour and UKIP losses will be in three figures as will the LD gains - let's not forget the LDs lost seats to Conservatives, Labour and UKIP last time. The focus has been on the CON-LD battles because there are plenty of them but the Lab-LD and UKIP-LD seats aren't insignificant. If Labour are doing that badly, they will ship seats to both Conservative and LD (look at Durham as an example).
Bets to be considered:
Max Verstappen for a podium
McLarens for points
Safety car or not
Bottas for a podium / win
Let's see what the markets say when they wake up.
To convert from 6 places to 5, the formula is
S=(3*((3*F)-1))/10
So 6 places priced at 17.7 is the same as 5 places priced at 20.0
I'll work out how much I can expect to be ahead or behind in a bit with my picks (365's v generous terms means I'll be ahead come the race almost certainly)
Offer ends at noon, existing customers only
So the assessment they have to make is whether anti Brexit (probably smaller but more certain) is a better positioning than "sane opposition" (I'd guess higher potential but more risky)
Had Goldsmith won, the Conservatives on here would have been full of how Farron was a failure, the LDs were a busted flush, how Goldsmith really was a Conservative and of course as night follows day, the Independent Goldsmith would have returned to the Conservative fold and been welcomed back by 2020.
Richmond Park was significant for Tim just as Eastbourne (under very different and tragic circumstances) was significant for Paddy and Romsey (also under tragic circumstances) was for Charles Kennedy. It was their win in a seat into which they had invested personal and political capital.
Mr. B, I agree with that assessment.
A lot depends on the sogginess. If it's very wet then Verstappen could do very well indeed. If it's largely dry, he won't make the top 6, all else being equal.
I do have a question mark over Red Bull reliability.
Grosjean may also be worth a look. The Haas is fast and he's a good driver.
[Apologies for tardy reply, immediately after logging in I was afk for the better part of an hour].
I think the key point here is that the presidential election is only the first half of the pair of elections which will determine what happens in France over the next few years. Although I focused on Macron, you can ask the same question about the other candidates. Of those in the running, only Fillon has any chance of becoming president and of having his party grouping holding a majority in the Assembly, and that looks a slim chance.
If Le Pen wins, she will face a huge anti-Front National majority in the Assembly, so how much could she actually do, for better or worse? That could lead to something of a constitutional crisis.
If Mélenchon were to win, the situation would be somewhat similar; he'd have to rely on the Parti Socialiste and other parties of the left, but they don't look at all likely to do well. Even if they did, they'd probably baulk at some of his nuttier policies.
Increasingly i think either we will have to accept as a society that only the rich own their own homes - or we need a pretty massive realignment through some form of state intervention. Maybe a ban on buy to let in certain areas? Maybe rent controls to make buy to let less attractive? Maybe a limit on number of properties someone can own? Or very significant taxes on property outside of your main residence.
Something has to give surely.
For his faults - Ed M. was trying to grapple with these issues. Osborne just wanted to inflate housing further. I'm optimistic TM will be more in touch on this and will try to address it... But Brexit will have to be the focus.
But thanks to RN for his recent pieces.
By 2020 Brexit will have happened and opposing it may be a case of "closing the stable door after the horse has bolted" even to some of those 20%. The 60% will still be there though.
Great thread, cheers Mr Nabavi, I was not aware Macron had such a fascinating backstory.
Ed goes on a comedy show and they promise not to mercilessly take the piss. They make their promise on an 8' high slab brought into the studio on a forklift.
https://twitter.com/undefined/status/850458418058059776
On topic, another excellent thread Richard.
Morning all, and thanks for an interesting read Richard.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=sxdkBzdEFxc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosby_by-election,_1981
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryedale_by-election,_1986
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastbourne_by-election,_1990
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribble_Valley_by-election,_1991
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kincardine_and_Deeside_by-election,_1991
Now lets consider which constituencies the LibDems have gained from the Conservatives in recent general elections:
2010 Eastbourne Con defending 1,124 maj
2010 Wells Con defending 3,040 maj
2005 Solihull Con defending 9,407 maj
2005 Taunton Con defending 205 maj
2005 Westmoreland Con defending 3,407 maj
2001 Cheadle Con defending 3,189 maj
2001 Dorset Mid Con defending 681 maj
2001 Guildford Con defending 4,791 maj
2001 Ludlow Con defending 5,909 maj
2001 Norfolk N Con defending 1,293 maj
2001 Teignbridge Con defending 281 maj
Not much evidence there that the LibDems are going to start overturning 10k Conservative majorities.
Now if the Conservatives are as unpopular in 2020 as they were in 1997 the LibDems might be able to make big gains. But there's much which will have to change for that to happen.
A wholesale correction of 25% would be welcomed by those not on the ladder and long-term owners. If you bought your place for 100k and it goes from 1m to 750k, so what, right? But the people it will screw over the most are first time buyers proabaly in their twenties and thirties who will be pushed into negative equity just a time when they may have a growing family and need to be trading up.
Then you have people whose wealth is all tied up in houses. Knowingly or not the government has vastly incentivised using buy to lets as a pension pot.
A correction of 50% would cause a panic and depress the economy - over-reliant as it is on wealth artificially created through the housing bubble - for the next decade. And a correction of 10% wouldn't make a difference to anyone who really needs it.
My solution would be to use a combination of policies to affect supply and demand over the next few years, keeping house prices roughly stable but in a slow, manageable decline (say 25% over the next 10 years).
- Disincentivise further buy to let purchases via tax, tax should be on purchase / sale rather than rental income to protect investors and prevent a glut of sales
- Build more houses! Obvious, this one. Reduce regulations on building new houses, where they can be built, height of buildings etc, while also increasing regulations on quality of stock, size of rooms etc, to ensure houses are of a high standard and retain their value.
- Reduce demand by controlling immigration. The population rises by 300,000 each year but the housing stock doesn't. We will never get house prices under control until we tackle immigration.
This should be coupled with greater protection for renters, standards and secure tenancies.
One of the surest signs of Conservative votership is home ownership, unless the Tories get this under control in the next decade they could easily be out of power for a generation.
I love the Ed Stone - even if you were a fan of Ed M, even if you liked the vapid slogans on the stone itself, it was still a bloody silly stunt, so good.
Admittedly helped out later with the superlative media performer Lucy Powell commenting that the Ed Stone didn't mean the promises carved into stone meant they might not be broken. It's not like they were written in stone or anything after all.
I'd agree with mass building and controlling immigration. I'd add punitive taxes on people who buy property and neither reside in it or let it out.