Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Results: December 19th 2013
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Results: December 19th 2013
Harper Green on Bolton (Lab Defence)
Result: Lab 744 (51% -22% on 2012), Con 325 (23% +6% on 2012), UKIP 252 (18%), Green 60 (4%), Lib Dem 53 (4% -6%)
Labour HOLD with a majority of 419 (28%) on a swing of 14% from Labour to Conservative since 2012
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Labour holding onto safe seats but leeching votes in massive swings against them (14% to Con; 20% to UKIP).
Cons holding most seats under attack mainly from UKIP.
Scotland arthritic under STV voting system.
Lib Dems nowhere until they pop up and grab a rural Lincolnshire seat taking sizeable chunks of UKIP and Con votes.
Conclusion: Absolutely nothing here to suggest Labour is going to be an electoral threat in 2015. Conservative defences solid. UKIP have peaked and are now on the wane. Lib Dems still capable of springing local triumph. Scotland impenetrable.
Tories can enjoy their Christmas breaks free from the worries of electoral defeat.
I do wonder whether swing is still a concept worth using. It was developed in the days of two parties dominating the entire GB political landscape. With today's fragmented system, many parties, even more X/Y battlegrounds, local and regional exceptions and so on, the notion of UNS - which was the reason for calculating swing in the first place - may be so inapplicable as to greatly diminish its value. But then if we don't use it, what better alternative have we?
Ukip are now starting to run a lot more candidates. This means voters get more chance to vote ukip, and once they start they will self identify as ukip voters and are more likely to remain ukip voters simply because they will now be offered the choice.
The threat to the tories is tactical voting benefiting ukip.
For labour, it is the softness of their vote.
For ukip it is not making a breakthrough in 2015.
But one must examine the current situation re. UK politics. The traditional NOTA party is now, of all things, in government. The Greens are obviously not a rallying cry for NOTAs as they have a specific agenda which 99.99% of people find unadjacent to reality.
So who does that leave? Step forward...UKIP.
They have tapped into several hot topics such as immigration, Europe, net revenue on exports minus payments for imports (kidding: UKIP have no view or idea about this).
And so people are only too happy to tick the UKIP/NOTA box today.
But come GE2015 "the people" will have far more sense and UKIP are destined for way <5%.
Can anyone explain this Tory grief?
Tim, may be gone but never forgotten.....not even for one thread.
Every piece needs a villain.
Sherlock has his Moriaty, Superman his Lex Luther
War opponents in the early naughties in the early 2000s had Tony Blair and George Bush, Star Wars it's Darth Vader.
Tim was the baddy of the piece, the villain, the conniving Blofeld sitting in Wirral Towers stroking his cat, masterminding the Labour message.
This is what is being felt.
He was also a fucking brilliant source of betting info
Efit: It is all true except the cat. He hates cats :P
It's Christmas Avery LP, I will take the left post.
EDIT: Off to bed now. If you respond in the affirmative will be happy to work out terms tomorrow.
But one must examine the current situation re. UK politics. The traditional NOTA party is now, of all things, in government. The Greens are obviously not a rallying cry for NOTAs as they have a specific agenda which 99.99% of people find unadjacent to reality.
So who does that leave? Step forward...UKIP.
They have tapped into several hot topics such as immigration, Europe, net revenue on exports minus payments for imports (kidding: UKIP have no view or idea about this).
And so people are only too happy to tick the UKIP/NOTA box today.
But come GE2015 "the people" will have far more sense and UKIP are destined for way <5%.</p>
Agreed on ukip being the NOTA party, but that is not all they are.
They are also the tactical voters party, the dissatisfied tories party, the only alternative for soft labour, and even the party for those who agree with their policies (such as they are) party.
Doe you honestly think the average voter understands or even cares about balance of payments? If so you are clearly bonkers. We, the political nerds are the oddities, the average guy in the street isn't bothered.
Whilst there will be some who drift back to the other parties, others will drift the other way.
To suggest they will go back to <5 just because thats what happened in the past is simplistic in the extreme.
No matter how far out of sight it has disappeared off into the grim and eternal darkness sewer, you know that it will always be, in some strange way, a part of you.
@Sam has offered me super great odds on my views on the GE2015 UKIP % vote and I have declined because I have found that betting can sour things not to say what amount of money do I want or feel worthwhile to tie up for 16 months?
So I am not going to bet save for what we used to call a "sportsman's bet" and, as such bets are similar to "proper" bets, come GE2015 results, you and I will have a super-interesting exchange once the results are in.
We still haven't really had a good sample of UKIP V Labour - it is quite conceivable that in certain constituencies the anti Labour vote will coalesce in the purple from the blue.
At the moment UKIP are the NOTA party - they need a few opinion poles with a '2' as the first digit as well as a good showing in BOTH May elections. If they do that then (pardon the pun on this site) all bets are off.
(I would like to see them do well - but not too well as IMHO they lack political experience)
The Lib Dems are facing the difficulties of governance, exacerbated by coming into office for the first time when Labour's epic economic incompetence necessitates numerous hard decisions (not all of which have been correct, cf Eggborough). The Conservatives are similarly faced with a difficult position and the compromises of coalition.
Labour should be in a position to reap the rewards of being the sole opposition party (nationwide), but are contaminated by recent memories of giving us the worst recession in history, being led by a man best known for destroying his brother's political career and somehow finding a man less popular than George Osborne to oppose him.
This comes after the MPs expenses scandal the general effect of which (undermining an already pretty low trust in the political class) is ongoing.
All the above makes a good opportunity for UKIP. As I said earlier today, if they shun the green ideology that seems to have gripped the main three parties and pledge to frack away, cut the taxes on coal, create employment, energy security and thereby lower fuel bills there's a wide open goal for UKIP.
It needs to move beyond Farage and the Farangian Guard, though.
Big profits hopefully on the horizon. We live in hope
And good evening, everyone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2reGl_yjx4
They were brave going for the treble.
Did you follow them in on that? I thought it was a punt too far and didn't.
My point is that UKIP presses a bunch of hot buttons at the moment much as the loudmouth down the pub might (crass analogy, no offence Nigel, MikeK).
But, and I think this is an interesting not to say critical difference in the outlook of our various political parties, when it comes down to it, I trust the people. I trust the electorate to understand (on whatever academic or technical level) that the country must be managed holistically and much as brownie points are scored on one or two points, the balance of payments, the NHS, the green belt, energy planning, HS2, LHR/LGW/Boris Island _all_ need to be considered.
The difficulty with the Greens, UKIP, RCP, Monster Raving Loonies, etc, is that they efficiently hit one button whereas many many buttons need to be pushed simultaneously and competently to be able to govern our country. That leaves Lab, Con, LD(-ish) and no one else, really.
Yes followed them in. Obviously the realistic part was the place side of the bet which would have paid out 4.5 units in total on the 1 unit stake.
If they'd have recommended a 1 pt win treble I'd have been on the blower to them asking them what they were playing at ;p.
The SNR was really low with that one ...
(And with this post, I decrease my SNR as well).
(If you understand this post, then you are truly a Geek).
But of course if you think they are all incompetent, then there is (as yet) no law to prevent you forming the only competent political party.
I promise to read your manifesto.
Boring and balanced competence is what the country needs to see us come out of the financial crisis stronger than we went in.
And you are right to trust the electorate. Like juries, they rarely made mistakes and have the advantage of not being professionals or experts.
The questions which will be answered in 2015 are:
1. Is the country in a better position than it was in 2010?
2. Is the Coalition Government mainly responsible for the change?
3. Is the job finished?
The answers will be 1. Yes ; 2. Yes; and 3. No.
The real competitive election will come in 2020, when there will be a realistic option for the voters to change political direction. 2015 will be all about completing the job in hand.
4 out of 7 LD seats with MP retiring have now selected. Somerton & Frome, Fife NE and Gordon are the 3 still to select.
And you are right to trust the electorate. Like juries, they rarely made mistakes and have the advantage of not being professionals or experts.
2005 hmmmmmmm....
Easy to question in hindsight.
The 1997-2001 Labour government was very competent and fully deserved re-election.
The 2001-2005 Labour government sowed the seeds of destruction but the damage was invisible to most and followed a global consensus. It was not until the following term that the electorate could have realised the danger.
So Blair over Howard was not really a mistake based on the information generally available at the time. I am not sure we should be blaming the voters on this one.
Quiet around these parts. Everyone wrapping awkwardly-shaped presents?
Has seant killed tim?
Is it some sort of cultural reference or quotation that I don't get?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2522656/Tom-Daleys-boyfriend-Dustin-Lance-Black-shows-support-Olympic-diver.html
Harry Hill does a version too!
http://youtu.be/of-ySTkxeDE
My milk shake brings all the boys to the yard,
And there like,
Its better than yours,
Damn right its better than yours,
I can teach you,
But I have to charge.
Here's the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AwXKJoKJz4
The problem is that its drowning Britain at the same time.
Perhaps you'd like to make a prediction when we get the first month of trade surplus since 1998 ?
And not surprising that you wish to exonerate the electorate for reelecting Labout in 2005.
Of course Cameron and Osborne were unable to see anything wrong with the weay the country was heading even in 2008.
tim's view will be that it is the responsibility of the site administration and moderation team to protect the chosen anonymity of PB participants when it comes under threat from other posters. And he will want his current absence to be interpreted as a stand on that principle.
tim has a very thick skin and he can give out as much as he receives, but he loses his balance of judgement when confronted with a single instance of perceived injustice. This is not just personal: he judges many politicians entirely on the basis of single error. The Hurd working for Nat West in Serbia being one of many examples (although I accept this may be part ironic).
I do hope that Sean can suppress his vanity for the few seconds it would need to apologise to tim, and, that OGH and the PB Moderators can indicate their empathy with tim's viewpoint.
tim has been an essential part of PB for so long and provides a tension which prevents the site from falling into the self congratulatory comfort of shared views or styles. Like him or loathe him, his absence from the site detracts from its weight, influence and fun.
In a spirit of Christmas reconciliation, I hope he returns soon and hope that none of those mentioned above take offence from this post.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10532147/Saatchis-campaign-to-smear-his-ex-wife.html
Let's see, for example this speech was before the banking crisis exploded:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2008/07/osborne-on-the.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/10153890/Its-that-man-again...-Cameron-curse-strikes-on-tearful-Robson.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr87KIlaA_I
* within MOE
Household borrowing rising at £100bn+ per year
Trade deficit having become permantised
Industrial production already falling
Unaffordable housing
Incipient power generation crisis
Epic fail RN.
Both from Osborne not understanding the subject and your good self in highlighting it.
Notice how much of Osborne's speech was spent babbling about non economic subjects ?
Why ? Because Osborne had bought into the Brownian economy's 'success'.
Tell me. Do you think George Osborne ever spent a few hours going through the ONS stats and THINKING.
You know the answer to that is no.
But that was his job to do so.
Do you think labour brought in the minimum wage partly to prevent unskilled pay falling to Eastern European levels once the accession was allowed in 2004?
That article is dated July 15 2008.
So NOT 'before the banking crisis exploded' but 10 months AFTER the run on Northern Rock and when Britain was ALREADY in recession.
In those circumstances its an utterly feeble denounciation of the Labour government and their economic vandalism..
And where did Osborne head for shortly after making that feeble, complacent speech ?
An oligarch's yacht.
Real clever visuals that for a recession.
It is a possible influence though... Poland started negotiating entry in 1989
I was not expressing a personal view. You will not be surprised that I voted Conservative in all of 1997, 2001 and 2005. I was trying to represent a consensus view or at least one with sufficient weight under our electoral system to decide on a government.
My Tory voting derives from fundamental political values and the belief that goals for social justice can only be achieved through economic success. These are rooted in the same principles covered by George Osborne in the 2008 speech linked by RN.
It is not enough for a few individuals reading ONS statistics correctly to change an electorate's view on future developments and current malaise. The prophets of doom must have an audience willing to receive their message. And this especially applies to politicians who have to sell their message in a market for votes. Being believed is far more important than being right.
Even if Osborne had read the tea leaves correctly in 2008 - I have no axe to grind on this - he would still be limited by his ability to convince others and by the resistance of the consensus. Once the problems became clear to the public through the financial crash and its consequences then the issue became far more what approach to take to solving the aftermath than it did in choosing individuals to lead who had made a correct early diagnosis.
And yes problems remain - you list many of them - but we should not only be screaming that they remain unsolved but making a judgement on the best approach needed to solve them and deciding which of the parties and leaders are best placedd to follow the right approach.
You are far too absolutist in your demands!
,
" JOE JAMES BROUGHTON
Richard, do you think we’re going into recession?
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
RICHARD
Joe
Yes – the economic fundamentals of this country are very weak. We have an ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ economy based on too much debt fuelled wealth consumption (both private and public sector) but with too little wealth creation.
The sense of affluence caused by the house price pyramid scheme is going into reverse and this will lead to job losses in construction, financial services and retail.
Manufacturing employment is already at its lowest level on record and is being very hard hit by rising commodity prices not to mention extra taxes, insurance costs and red tape.
Issues like national energy security and savings/pensions are also very worrying. Expect the next few years to see rising prices, job losses, public sector strikes and repeated crises. Very 1970s! "
Now I'm not claiming to be a great economic sage - the evidence was there for all to see it.
All that was needed was an open mind, a bit of common sense and a willingness to look at the economic stats.
Which of those did Osborne lack ?
Possibly we're now all making the reverse mistake, expecting vast Bulgarian and Romanian immigration when it will turn out to be more like Greek levels. Regardless of whether we think large-scale immigration good or bad, nobody really knows for sure what will catch on among lots of individuals.
If you hadn't introduced it, is it fair to say the 2004 accession would have been catastrophic for millions of the working class?
I just don't think that either the current Labour party or the Libdems themselves have enough credit tucked away with each others support base, or with the NOTA to manage the kind of organised tactical voting that was so effective and damaging to the Conservatives in the late 90's/early 2000's it was openly being debated on in radio phone ins. And the more publicity UKIP get, especially tagged with the narrative that they are only going to hurt the Conservatives, the more that message will resonate. You might have formerly voted Libdem to keep a Tory out, now you are angry that your Libdem MP is sitting in a Government with the Tories. Why would you take the risk of staying loyal and voting Libdem in a Libdem/Tory marginal on the off chance that if Labour doesn't win the next GE it will be a Lab/Libdem Coaliton? This kind of tactically voting is far more risky if the outcome of a GE is far more fluid and unpredictable. And by trying to vote tactically to prevent a Conservative Government you somehow managed to end up helping to deliver a Conservative Government or another Conservative/Libdem Coalition Government instead by keeping a Libdem MP in place?
There has been lots of focus here on PB about if and where UKIP might win a Westminster seat at the next GE, but very little focus or attention to back up the claim that the Libdems specific targeting of seats will make sure that the old anti Tory tactical voting of the past will hold firm with them and of course the Labour party as the only beneficiaries. There are lots of predictions about the Libdems losing seats, or even gaining one or two off the Tories, but very little real scrutiny or detail of where or how. Westminster by-elections are vastly different from GE campaigns, and this significant difference is not being highlighted nearly enough.
Ten percent is a very small premium to incent taking a job in Russia.
You would need to be offered at least twice the salary you would expect in your home country and be assured of many additional benefits not normally offered (e.g. decent accommodation, car and driver, security guard (depending on job/position), medical insurance (specific to Russia), family flights and schooling support and enhanced life insurance!). Access to a weekend Dacha outside the smog of Central Moscow would be on my list too.
'Also, you may not believe it, but Ministers were genuinely surprised by the size of Polish immigration (so was pretty well everyone else)'
If that's true,why didn't the Labour government push for longer than the usual 7 years before Bulgarian & Romanian nationals could work in the UK.
Re Tim's absence
The political betting site needs a wide range of viewpoints to stimulate ideas and keep it fresh. Tim's opinions make a valuable contribution to the site. So come back Tim.
I would prefer people not to write anonymously but to use their real name. However, there can be valid reasons for people to use a nom de plume. Many choose to do so and we should respect that.