Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

What do we think of Isam’s CON majority bet? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 14 in General
imageWhat do we think of Isam’s CON majority bet? – politicalbetting.com

On the previous thread PBer Isam wrote that he had just bet on the CON majority for the next general election. He didn’t tell us what odds he got but at the time the party was about a 40% chance on Betfair.

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • Locking up significant capital for years on a bet never seem like the optimal use.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 9,371
    2nd. Like .. er .. er .. a brief interval on a clock.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    I think 40%, or even 50%, or even 55% are all screaming buys for Conservative majority in 2024.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007

    Locking up significant capital for years on a bet never seem like the optimal use.

    That, as you say, is the big issue.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 13,804
    edited September 14
    @isam is spot on. A majority of 80 is tough to overturn. And Boris has the X Factor. SKS doesn’t.
    I do get the feeling that the next one will be a 1992 one though. The manifest problems of Tory rule stored up, ignored, or dismissed will burst out into the open. In a flood not a trickle.
    A credible Labour leader will be the catalyst. One who looks forward not back.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 13,804
    rcs1000 said:

    I think 40%, or even 50%, or even 55% are all screaming buys for Conservative majority in 2024.

    I'd go 2 in 3. But tying up the money is the issue.
  • It looks like a good bet but there are some unknown factors that give me pause before tying up the stake for three years. For instance:-

    Will Boris have retired? He was quoted at the weekend as wanting to break Mrs Thatcher's record but he almost has to say something along those lines even if he plans to quit next week.

    Will it be 2024, which limits flexibility? Normally, you'd expect a dominant government to call an election after four years, at a time to suit itself.

    Will it be 2024 which is the Queen's Platinum Jubilee year which might limit campaigning?

    But good luck.
  • Betfair will be down this morning from 6 to 10am for planned maintenance.

    They do not say what the planned maintenance is but hardware replacement might be possible after recent outages; we can probably take the 10am end-time as flexible.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 54,871

    It looks like a good bet but there are some unknown factors that give me pause before tying up the stake for three years. For instance:-

    Will Boris have retired? He was quoted at the weekend as wanting to break Mrs Thatcher's record but he almost has to say something along those lines even if he plans to quit next week.

    Will it be 2024, which limits flexibility? Normally, you'd expect a dominant government to call an election after four years, at a time to suit itself.

    Will it be 2024 which is the Queen's Platinum Jubilee year which might limit campaigning?

    But good luck.

    The platinum Jubilee is next year, 2022.
  • RobD said:

    It looks like a good bet but there are some unknown factors that give me pause before tying up the stake for three years. For instance:-

    Will Boris have retired? He was quoted at the weekend as wanting to break Mrs Thatcher's record but he almost has to say something along those lines even if he plans to quit next week.

    Will it be 2024, which limits flexibility? Normally, you'd expect a dominant government to call an election after four years, at a time to suit itself.

    Will it be 2024 which is the Queen's Platinum Jubilee year which might limit campaigning?

    But good luck.

    The platinum Jubilee is next year, 2022.
    Yes of course it is. Not sure what I was thinking there, especially as I'd just been contemplating the Derby which has been designated as part of the celebration. (HMQ's Derby hope was beaten at the weekend so back to the drawing board.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think 40%, or even 50%, or even 55% are all screaming buys for Conservative majority in 2024.

    I'd go 2 in 3. But tying up the money is the issue.
    Well, I think 60% to 70% is the correct probability for a Conservative Majority in 2024. So, I wouldn't want to buy above 55% implied probability, because I'm tying my money up for three years, and I have to earn a profit.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,022
    edited September 14
    The boundary changes significantly increase the chance of a Tory majority IMO, from about 45% to 55%, (current assessment of the odds, might/will change).
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,438
    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think 40%, or even 50%, or even 55% are all screaming buys for Conservative majority in 2024.

    I'd go 2 in 3. But tying up the money is the issue.
    Well, I think 60% to 70% is the correct probability for a Conservative Majority in 2024. So, I wouldn't want to buy above 55% implied probability, because I'm tying my money up for three years, and I have to earn a profit.
    This is somewhere where the crypto markets could be helpful: Apart from tradition there's no reason you should have to bet in a currency that's designed to slowly inflate itself away to discourage you from hoarding it, instead of an asset that's supposed to produce a return.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    Andy_JS said:

    The boundary changes significantly increase the chance of a Tory majority IMO, from about 45% to 55%, (current assessment of the odds, might/will change).

    That's an excellent point - Cons gain 8 to 10 IIRC.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,355

    Locking up significant capital for years on a bet never seem like the optimal use.

    On something I didn’t want to happen, I would find it hard, unless I really persuaded myself that it was distress insurance.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,355
    Andy_JS said:

    The boundary changes significantly increase the chance of a Tory majority IMO, from about 45% to 55%, (current assessment of the odds, might/will change).

    I’m not convinced that is such a strong factor with the new and emerging distribution of votes. In particular the assessments always work from current state, which is a significant Tory lead, and not what really matters which is the impact of new boundaries were the parties to be neck and neck.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,013
    Historically, it has been difficult to overturn a majority of 80 in a single election, and I think a narrower Tory majority of 20-30 is the most likely outcome. There are significant chances of NOM and a not insignificant chance of an increased Tory majority. I think that the high water mark has been seen already though.

    That said, the last 5 years has shown extraordinary political volatility and realignment, and that may well continue.

    I think @isam has a good bet. The next election looks more like 1992 to me than 1997. Labour are not yet a credible alternative government, even though voters are looking increasingly disgruntled with the current lot.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,355
    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think 40%, or even 50%, or even 55% are all screaming buys for Conservative majority in 2024.

    I'd go 2 in 3. But tying up the money is the issue.
    Well, I think 60% to 70% is the correct probability for a Conservative Majority in 2024. So, I wouldn't want to buy above 55% implied probability, because I'm tying my money up for three years, and I have to earn a profit.
    The bet surely assumes a trading opportunity sooner than that? The question is, what set of circumstances is going to make the Tories look more certain winners (or spell real grief for Labour) in the next couple of years?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,355
    Until now, claims that television makes you stupid have only been backed up by anecdotal evidence.

    Now, sadly, science has trundled along to back it up. According to Dr Ryan Dougherty, from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, the more television you watch in middle age, the lower your volume in grey matter. Examining the viewing habits of 599 American adults between 1990 and 2011, Dougherty found that those who watched an above average amount of television showed reduced volume in their frontal cortex and entorhinal cortex. Basically, your mum was right: TV really does rot your brain.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,094
    edited September 14
    What do I think of a bet where I know neither the odds nor the size of the wager? Err…

    If we guess that he managed to get a four figure sum on at near best published prices then I think it is alright. Not spectacular, but not a total dud. Not headline material either way. But then serious punters are pretty much non-existent on PB these days, so I can understand eager guzzling of thin gruel.

    I think NOM and Lab Maj are overpriced, so by definition Con Maj looks reasonable value. But try getting a grand on at most bookies! Good luck. If you consistently win (like me) then you are allowed 50p stakes, or worse: they simply close your account.

    I’d personally prefer to risk my grand on equities, and I am of the strong opinion that the shit is about to hit the fan on global bourses. But even in a steep fall, you don’t lose *all* your money, which you do if you hand the spondoolicks over to Shadsy. And not tied up for two to three years either.

    Summary: as a trading bet C. As a hold bet F. As a bit of fun for somebody for whom a grand is pocket money B.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    Foxy said:

    Historically, it has been difficult to overturn a majority of 80 in a single election, and I think a narrower Tory majority of 20-30 is the most likely outcome. There are significant chances of NOM and a not insignificant chance of an increased Tory majority. I think that the high water mark has been seen already though.

    That said, the last 5 years has shown extraordinary political volatility and realignment, and that may well continue.

    I think @isam has a good bet. The next election looks more like 1992 to me than 1997. Labour are not yet a credible alternative government, even though voters are looking increasingly disgruntled with the current lot.

    I think you and @dixiedean are absolutely right; the next election is likely to be like 1992, with a reduced Conservative majority.

    Of course, most likely is far from certain.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 67,572
    Its unspectacular but good - Next election will be Con reduced majority.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,355
    edited September 14
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Historically, it has been difficult to overturn a majority of 80 in a single election, and I think a narrower Tory majority of 20-30 is the most likely outcome. There are significant chances of NOM and a not insignificant chance of an increased Tory majority. I think that the high water mark has been seen already though.

    That said, the last 5 years has shown extraordinary political volatility and realignment, and that may well continue.

    I think @isam has a good bet. The next election looks more like 1992 to me than 1997. Labour are not yet a credible alternative government, even though voters are looking increasingly disgruntled with the current lot.

    I think you and @dixiedean are absolutely right; the next election is likely to be like 1992, with a reduced Conservative majority.

    Of course, most likely is far from certain.
    What the LibDems need is an election where the Tories are on the back foot, allowing them to harvest discontented government supporters. By the time the next election comes we won’t have had such a situation for twenty five years
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,664
    Good morning, everyone.

    Credible, problem is that we do live in volatile times and polling, as Ed Miliband found, isn't always indicative of how people will vote. I think it'll probably come off.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 524
    WRT the bet, I think a reduced con majority is correct. But I also think that things will get worse for the tories before they get better; the NI rise was just the start of its popularity problems.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,398
    Too early.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 41,639
    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,627
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Historically, it has been difficult to overturn a majority of 80 in a single election, and I think a narrower Tory majority of 20-30 is the most likely outcome. There are significant chances of NOM and a not insignificant chance of an increased Tory majority. I think that the high water mark has been seen already though.

    That said, the last 5 years has shown extraordinary political volatility and realignment, and that may well continue.

    I think @isam has a good bet. The next election looks more like 1992 to me than 1997. Labour are not yet a credible alternative government, even though voters are looking increasingly disgruntled with the current lot.

    I think you and @dixiedean are absolutely right; the next election is likely to be like 1992, with a reduced Conservative majority.

    Of course, most likely is far from certain.
    1992 was a surprise for the Conservatives on the upside. Not sure what the odds were and I'm not sure seat spreads were even a thing then.

    I think a lot of negatives will hit the Tories before the next election.

    Tax rises will be felt.

    Brexit will be "done" and Red Wall voters will no longer need to be grateful.

    More sleaze and corruption will emerge, much but not all over Covid contracts.

    NHS waiting lists will still be large.

    Migrants will still be crossing thr channel.


    If Starmer can avoid doing a Kinnock enough voters will feel it's time for a change and he has a good chance of preventing Con Maj.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 556
    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    1) Beware of extrapolation from small datasets
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 41,639

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Historically, it has been difficult to overturn a majority of 80 in a single election, and I think a narrower Tory majority of 20-30 is the most likely outcome. There are significant chances of NOM and a not insignificant chance of an increased Tory majority. I think that the high water mark has been seen already though.

    That said, the last 5 years has shown extraordinary political volatility and realignment, and that may well continue.

    I think @isam has a good bet. The next election looks more like 1992 to me than 1997. Labour are not yet a credible alternative government, even though voters are looking increasingly disgruntled with the current lot.

    I think you and @dixiedean are absolutely right; the next election is likely to be like 1992, with a reduced Conservative majority.

    Of course, most likely is far from certain.
    1992 was a surprise for the Conservatives on the upside. Not sure what the odds were and I'm not sure seat spreads were even a thing then.

    I think a lot of negatives will hit the Tories before the next election.

    Tax rises will be felt.

    Brexit will be "done" and Red Wall voters will no longer need to be grateful.

    More sleaze and corruption will emerge, much but not all over Covid contracts.

    NHS waiting lists will still be large.

    Migrants will still be crossing thr channel.


    If Starmer can avoid doing a Kinnock enough voters will feel it's time for a change and he has a good chance of preventing Con Maj.
    Another question worth bearing in mind is, of course, do the Tories want an overall majority?* 1992 was very much a cursed victory for them. Had they lost narrowly Labour would have had to explain Black Wednesday and we wouldn’t ever have heard of Brown’s economic genius.

    *The answer is ‘yes’, btw, because this lot only think in short terms.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 19,632

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Historically, it has been difficult to overturn a majority of 80 in a single election, and I think a narrower Tory majority of 20-30 is the most likely outcome. There are significant chances of NOM and a not insignificant chance of an increased Tory majority. I think that the high water mark has been seen already though.

    That said, the last 5 years has shown extraordinary political volatility and realignment, and that may well continue.

    I think @isam has a good bet. The next election looks more like 1992 to me than 1997. Labour are not yet a credible alternative government, even though voters are looking increasingly disgruntled with the current lot.

    I think you and @dixiedean are absolutely right; the next election is likely to be like 1992, with a reduced Conservative majority.

    Of course, most likely is far from certain.
    1992 was a surprise for the Conservatives on the upside. Not sure what the odds were and I'm not sure seat spreads were even a thing then.

    I think a lot of negatives will hit the Tories before the next election.

    Tax rises will be felt.

    Brexit will be "done" and Red Wall voters will no longer need to be grateful.

    More sleaze and corruption will emerge, much but not all over Covid contracts.

    NHS waiting lists will still be large.

    Migrants will still be crossing thr channel.


    If Starmer can avoid doing a Kinnock enough voters will feel it's time for a change and he has a good chance of preventing Con Maj.
    It's worth remembering that 1992 took place after a very nasty recession and the Tories won. 1997 took place off the back of a number of good years with the country feeling good about itself (Britpop, Euro 96, etc.). And Labour won a landslide.

    I'm firmly of the view that to become PM from LotO, you have to be very good. Is Starmer up to it? I suspect not, but he has time to surprise us.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,627
    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    I think you'd get good odds on that right now, but even better next year.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 41,639
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    1) Beware of extrapolation from small datasets
    13 general elections is a small dataset?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    I like that, a gutsy call.

    However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    1) Beware of extrapolation from small datasets
    13 general elections is a small dataset?
    Yes.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 33,469
    It’s a long way off for short-odds bets, but instinctively 2/3 Con Maj and 1/3 NOM seems about right. As others have said, the 1992 scenario is probably closest to where we are.

    There’s an awful lot to happen before the next election though, and while the pandemic was good for govt popularity, it also means the difficult decisions are more difficult than usual, and being taken later in the Parliament than usual.

    October 2023 is my guess for the GE date, so there’s only two years before Parliament gets dissolved. There needs to be quick progress towards levelling up in the North, transferring dozens of civil servants out of London won’t by itself do that job.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 41,639
    edited September 14
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    1) Beware of extrapolation from small datasets
    13 general elections is a small dataset?
    Yes.
    There have been 24 elections on a universal suffrage franchise. In that time only five governments with a majority of over 50 have lost power - the Conservatives in 1929, the National coalition of 1945, the Conservatives in 1964, Labour in 1970 and Labour in 2010.

    Is that better?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,627
    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    Closest bet I can find that might fit your bill is Skybet 2/1 on Conservatives increasing their majority. Much too short for me.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,355
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    1) Beware of extrapolation from small datasets
    And from a different era
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,355
    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    I like that, a gutsy call.

    However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
    Old boundaries are generally better for tactical voting.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 41,639
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    1) Beware of extrapolation from small datasets
    And from a different era
    The point is it doesn’t happen often, and it’s rare because under our system it’s very, very hard work.

    Speaking for myself, I would love to see the Tories evicted from office, but it’s tough to see a pathway for them to lose their overall majority. A Blair style swing would do it but not much else.

    What I think is more plausible is that they will end up with a majority in single figures followed a couple of years later by another election.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 33,469

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    Closest bet I can find that might fit your bill is Skybet 2/1 on Conservatives increasing their majority. Much too short for me.
    That should be closer to 5/1 I think. There’s a few seats in the boundary changes, but likely countered by some marginals going back to Lab and LD.

    The only obvious ways to me that the majority goes up, is if :
    1. Scotland plays a big part in the UK-wide campaign, and Labour don’t rule out working with the SNP.
    Or
    2. Even more of the Red Wall turns blue, as a result of serious investment being seen to happen in those seats that voted blue in 2019.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 39,165
    I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.

    When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,355
    edited September 14
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    1) Beware of extrapolation from small datasets
    And from a different era
    The point is it doesn’t happen often, and it’s rare because under our system it’s very, very hard work.

    Speaking for myself, I would love to see the Tories evicted from office, but it’s tough to see a pathway for them to lose their overall majority. A Blair style swing would do it but not much else.

    What I think is more plausible is that they will end up with a majority in single figures followed a couple of years later by another election.
    You are probably right.

    A plausible route is mass defections of educated Tories to the LibDems in the Home Counties, as the Tories continue to take their offering down market.

    Looking at past results, most of the seats look a stretch, but then who would have expected Tory MPs for Wakefield, Mansfield, Stoke and Bolsover?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,627
    Sandpit said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    Closest bet I can find that might fit your bill is Skybet 2/1 on Conservatives increasing their majority. Much too short for me.
    That should be closer to 5/1 I think. There’s a few seats in the boundary changes, but likely countered by some marginals going back to Lab and LD.

    The only obvious ways to me that the majority goes up, is if :
    1. Scotland plays a big part in the UK-wide campaign, and Labour don’t rule out working with the SNP.
    Or
    2. Even more of the Red Wall turns blue, as a result of serious investment being seen to happen in those seats that voted blue in 2019.
    Yes it's one of those bets where if the bookie isnt letting you back the reverse outcome the odds are a joke.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 19,632
    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    I like that, a gutsy call.

    However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
    Can I refer you to this piece...

    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/05/16/the-case-for-labour-making-an-electoral-pact/

    The scope for the anti-Tory vote become much more efficient on its own is limited. They start with 317 seats in which they won 47.5% or more of the vote. Only once (Newcastle-under-Lyme, 2017) have the Tories hit that percentage and lost since 1979.

    Here are the other 48 seats:

    Constituency, Con Share, First/Second, Majority
    YNYS MON, 35.5%, ConLab, 5.4 pp
    KENSINGTON, 38.3%, ConLab, 0.3 pp
    WIMBLEDON, 38.4%, ConLib, 1.2 pp
    ASHFIELD, 39.3%, ConOth, 11.7 pp
    CITIES OF LONDON AND WESTMINSTER, 39.9%, ConLib, 9.3 pp
    BURNLEY, 40.3%, ConLab, 3.5 pp
    NORTH WEST DURHAM, 41.9%, ConLab, 2.4 pp
    CARSHALTON AND WALLINGTON, 42.4%, ConLib, 1.3 pp
    WEST ABERDEENSHIRE AND KINCARDINE, 42.7%, ConSNP, 1.6 pp
    BLYTH VALLEY, 42.7%, ConLab, 1.7 pp
    HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON, 43.1%, ConLab, 1.4 pp
    BRIDGEND, 43.1%, ConLab, 2.7 pp
    DON VALLEY, 43.2%, ConLab, 8.0 pp
    DELYN, 43.7%, ConLab, 2.3 pp
    BURY SOUTH, 43.8%, ConLab, 0.8 pp
    FINCHLEY AND GOLDERS GREEN, 43.8%, ConLib, 11.9 pp
    DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY, 44.1%, ConSNP, 3.5 pp
    CLWYD SOUTH, 44.7%, ConLab, 3.4 pp
    CHIPPING BARNET, 44.7%, ConLab, 2.1 pp
    GUILDFORD, 44.9%, ConLib, 5.7 pp
    ROTHER VALLEY, 45.1%, ConLab, 13.0 pp
    DERBY NORTH, 45.2%, ConLab, 5.4 pp
    WYCOMBE, 45.2%, ConLab, 7.7 pp
    LEIGH, 45.3%, ConLab, 4.2 pp
    MORAY, 45.3%, ConSNP, 1.1 pp
    WREXHAM, 45.3%, ConLab, 6.4 pp
    BOLTON NORTH EAST, 45.4%, ConLab, 0.9 pp
    STOKE-ON-TRENT CENTRAL, 45.4%, ConLab, 2.1 pp
    GEDLING, 45.5%, ConLab, 1.4 pp
    WATFORD, 45.5%, ConLab, 7.6 pp
    WARRINGTON SOUTH, 45.5%, ConLab, 3.2 pp
    HIGH PEAK, 45.9%, ConLab, 1.1 pp
    CHEADLE, 46.0%, ConLib, 4.2 pp
    DUMFRIESSHIRE, CLYDESDALE AND TWEEDDALE, 46.0%, ConSNP, 7.7 pp
    TRURO AND FALMOUTH, 46.0%, ConLab, 7.7 pp
    REDCAR, 46.1%, ConLab, 8.6 pp
    ABERCONWY, 46.1%, ConLab, 6.4 pp
    BURY NORTH, 46.2%, ConLab, 0.2 pp
    BIRMINGHAM, NORTHFIELD, 46.3%, ConLab, 3.8 pp
    SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE, 46.3%, ConLib, 4.3 pp
    VALE OF CLWYD, 46.4%, ConLab, 4.9 pp
    DEWSBURY, 46.4%, ConLab, 2.8 pp
    WEST BROMWICH EAST, 46.7%, ConLab, 4.4 pp
    PETERBOROUGH, 46.7%, ConLab, 5.4 pp
    HITCHIN AND HARPENDEN, 47.1%, ConLib, 11.7 pp
    SEDGEFIELD, 47.2%, ConLab, 10.9 pp
    WAKEFIELD, 47.3%, ConLab, 7.5 pp
    BOLSOVER, 47.4%, ConLab, 11.5 pp

    Okay, so boundary changes make this difficult to assess (the cities seat is being split up, etc.), but the Tory vote needs to be eroded in most of these for them to come into play.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 19,632
    Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 33,469

    Sandpit said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    Closest bet I can find that might fit your bill is Skybet 2/1 on Conservatives increasing their majority. Much too short for me.
    That should be closer to 5/1 I think. There’s a few seats in the boundary changes, but likely countered by some marginals going back to Lab and LD.

    The only obvious ways to me that the majority goes up, is if :
    1. Scotland plays a big part in the UK-wide campaign, and Labour don’t rule out working with the SNP.
    Or
    2. Even more of the Red Wall turns blue, as a result of serious investment being seen to happen in those seats that voted blue in 2019.
    Yes it's one of those bets where if the bookie isnt letting you back the reverse outcome the odds are a joke.
    Ah yes, always be wary of markets where a bookie doesn’t offer bets on both sides of the same question!

    If the’re offering 2/1 on an increased majority, they should be offering close to 1/2 (let’s be generous, 2/5) on a reduced majority or NOM. Which I’ll bite their hand off for, all day every day, even this far out.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,398
    Word of warning: votes and seats aren't very sticky these days. Party loyalty is nothing like what it was in the 80s and 90s, and the wild swings of 2019 should be testament to that. And there really isn't much difference between getting a majority of 80, and just missing one; the spread is vast.

    The omens for this administration aren't good, and a lot may happen over the next 18-24 months - both economically and geopolitically.

    The only real bank they have is that Starmer is about as effective as a deflated octopus, but it's not enough to tempt me at present.

    Pass.
  • DavidL said:

    I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.

    When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.

    The problem for the Tories is that Boris hasn't a fucking clue how to actually deliver things. The debacle over the tax rise for social care that doesn't give a penny to social care and thus fucks further the NHS being a prime example.

    On paper they absolutely should win again. Big majority, broad base, ineffective opposition. And yet people now expect delivery of the promises they backed. Boris and the clown car have no idea how to do this, people get quickly bored of empty rhetoric even when they used to like the speaker, it can go south and quickly.

    Unless of course the inevitable happens. The Tories are very good at removing the leader when they are the problem. The Tory government adopting many labour policies absolutely could be a route to another 10 years, but not if they are seen as incompetent and uncaring. The Coffey gaffe yesterday does them no favours. But switch the leader? Then I'd anticipate isam's bet winning.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,398
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    1) Beware of extrapolation from small datasets
    And from a different era
    The point is it doesn’t happen often, and it’s rare because under our system it’s very, very hard work.

    Speaking for myself, I would love to see the Tories evicted from office, but it’s tough to see a pathway for them to lose their overall majority. A Blair style swing would do it but not much else.

    What I think is more plausible is that they will end up with a majority in single figures followed a couple of years later by another election.
    You are probably right.

    A plausible route is mass defections of educated Tories to the LibDems in the Home Counties, as the Tories continue to take their offering down market.

    Looking at past results, most of the seats look a stretch, but then who would have expected Tory MPs for Wakefield, Mansfield, Stoke and Bolsover?
    It would be if they made themselves vaguely attractive and far more like the FDP.

    Unfortunately, they are Liberal Democrats.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 19,632

    In other news, Emma Raducanu wears a dress to the Met Gala in the colours of the Cornish flag. Significant, surely?

    Rubbing shoulders with AOC?

    https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/aoc-met-gala-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dress/index.html

    Slippery slope...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 33,469
    Way offtopic, but one of the funniest stories of the week.

    Police in Australia and the USA developed a “Secure Messaging Phone”, which they supplied to underworld markets to see what would happen. All of the secure messages ended up with the AFP and FBI, and they were able to make 800 arrests, including big-time drug dealers, gang leaders and assassins.

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/11/inside-story-most-daring-surveillance-sting-in-history?source=techstories.org
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,532

    In other news, Emma Raducanu wears a dress to the Met Gala in the colours of the Cornish flag. Significant, surely?

    Ahí she's just a 'patsy ' you mean?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,486
    Events.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,627
    tlg86 said:

    Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.

    Blair owned Scotland in those days.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,006
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    1) Beware of extrapolation from small datasets
    13 general elections is a small dataset?
    Yes.
    There have been 24 elections on a universal suffrage franchise. In that time only five governments with a majority of over 50 have lost power - the Conservatives in 1929, the National coalition of 1945, the Conservatives in 1964, Labour in 1970 and Labour in 2010.

    Is that better?
    Still the wrong denominator?
    Out of how many times when govt had majority over 50, has it lost it.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,627
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    Closest bet I can find that might fit your bill is Skybet 2/1 on Conservatives increasing their majority. Much too short for me.
    That should be closer to 5/1 I think. There’s a few seats in the boundary changes, but likely countered by some marginals going back to Lab and LD.

    The only obvious ways to me that the majority goes up, is if :
    1. Scotland plays a big part in the UK-wide campaign, and Labour don’t rule out working with the SNP.
    Or
    2. Even more of the Red Wall turns blue, as a result of serious investment being seen to happen in those seats that voted blue in 2019.
    Yes it's one of those bets where if the bookie isnt letting you back the reverse outcome the odds are a joke.
    Ah yes, always be wary of markets where a bookie doesn’t offer bets on both sides of the same question!

    If the’re offering 2/1 on an increased majority, they should be offering close to 1/2 (let’s be generous, 2/5) on a reduced majority or NOM. Which I’ll bite their hand off for, all day every day, even this far out.
    Exactly. I might be cheeky and ask them to quote me odds and see how shameless they are.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,398

    tlg86 said:

    Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.

    Blair owned Scotland in those days.
    The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.

    They will want a referendum, and money of course.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,470
    tlg86 said:

    In other news, Emma Raducanu wears a dress to the Met Gala in the colours of the Cornish flag. Significant, surely?

    Rubbing shoulders with AOC?

    https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/aoc-met-gala-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dress/index.html

    Slippery slope...
    thus ends her short tenure as the britnat gravure idol
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,486
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Historically, it has been difficult to overturn a majority of 80 in a single election, and I think a narrower Tory majority of 20-30 is the most likely outcome. There are significant chances of NOM and a not insignificant chance of an increased Tory majority. I think that the high water mark has been seen already though.

    That said, the last 5 years has shown extraordinary political volatility and realignment, and that may well continue.

    I think @isam has a good bet. The next election looks more like 1992 to me than 1997. Labour are not yet a credible alternative government, even though voters are looking increasingly disgruntled with the current lot.

    I think you and @dixiedean are absolutely right; the next election is likely to be like 1992, with a reduced Conservative majority.

    Of course, most likely is far from certain.
    1992 was a surprise for the Conservatives on the upside. Not sure what the odds were and I'm not sure seat spreads were even a thing then.

    I think a lot of negatives will hit the Tories before the next election.

    Tax rises will be felt.

    Brexit will be "done" and Red Wall voters will no longer need to be grateful.

    More sleaze and corruption will emerge, much but not all over Covid contracts.

    NHS waiting lists will still be large.

    Migrants will still be crossing thr channel.


    If Starmer can avoid doing a Kinnock enough voters will feel it's time for a change and he has a good chance of preventing Con Maj.
    It's worth remembering that 1992 took place after a very nasty recession and the Tories won. 1997 took place off the back of a number of good years with the country feeling good about itself (Britpop, Euro 96, etc.). And Labour won a landslide.

    I'm firmly of the view that to become PM from LotO, you have to be very good. Is Starmer up to it? I suspect not, but he has time to surprise us.
    Thatcher, Blair, and half a point for Cameron. Then we had Wilson, Heath, Churchill (v2, don’t know if that counts) and Atlee. A short list indeed.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,664
    Mr. Sandpit, be fair. She's leading the way in research to use hypocrisy as a source of renewable energy.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,486
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    In other news, Emma Raducanu wears a dress to the Met Gala in the colours of the Cornish flag. Significant, surely?

    Rubbing shoulders with AOC?

    https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/aoc-met-gala-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dress/index.html

    Slippery slope...
    I’m going to say tax the rich, after paying $30k a ticket to spend the evening partying with hundreds of them!

    Hypocrite politicians, who consider themselves celebrities rather than public servants, are clearly a global problem.
    AOC might be the one that leads America into acceptance of the Beijing Consensus. There’s a thought.

    Incidentally I thought Musk’s recent comments on inheritance tax interesting. Fully in favour on the basis that it’s rare for progeny to be equally good at capital allocation. He frequently makes the point that being in control of large pools of capital is not necessarily the same thing as being “rich”, though the two often go hand in hand. In his case he seems to have been ahead of the curve of his Chinese counterparts in selling down personal assets and focusing on the former than the latter.
  • DavidL said:

    I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.

    When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.

    The problem for the Tories is that Boris hasn't a fucking clue how to actually deliver things. The debacle over the tax rise for social care that doesn't give a penny to social care and thus fucks further the NHS being a prime example.

    On paper they absolutely should win again. Big majority, broad base, ineffective opposition. And yet people now expect delivery of the promises they backed. Boris and the clown car have no idea how to do this, people get quickly bored of empty rhetoric even when they used to like the speaker, it can go south and quickly.

    Unless of course the inevitable happens. The Tories are very good at removing the leader when they are the problem. The Tory government adopting many labour policies absolutely could be a route to another 10 years, but not if they are seen as incompetent and uncaring. The Coffey gaffe yesterday does them no favours. But switch the leader? Then I'd anticipate isam's bet winning.
    And the 1992 win required the Conservatives to ditch not only their leader, but their flagship policy. And whilst Rishi was undoubtedly heir (all too) apparent until last week, that seems a lot less obvious today. And even then, the Conservative majority fell by 80 seats.

    That doesn't mean that the Conservatives will lose their majority next time. A lot of it depends on whether it's better to think of politics as being near the end of Year 2 in a 5 year cycle, or in Year 1 of a 3 year cycle after a Covid hibernation.

    But yes. A Conservative win next time is likely, but I'm not sure it's overwhelmingly so. And it depends a lot on when the current trend breaks.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,201

    tlg86 said:

    Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.

    Blair owned Scotland in those days.
    The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.

    They will want a referendum, and money of course.
    The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 67,843
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I was looking forward to watching the Norwegian election night show. Unfortunately I totally forgot the election was today. For some reason I thought it was around 20th September. Maybe it'll appear on YouTube to watch retrospectively.

    'I was looking forward to watching the Norwegian election night show.'

    Only on PB, never mind you have election night shows from Canada and Germany in the next 2 weeks
    What's the position on early voting/postal votes in Germany and Canada? I'm curious in case of late polling changes.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 25,429
    I believe in redistributing wealth from the rich. It is the fair thing to do, and as PM, I fully intend to bring in policies that will redistribute wealth from those with little need to those most in need. And by most in need, I mean those who have dedicated their lives to public service, working diligently and without fail to reach the highest office in the land. It is only fair that those who have sacrificed so much over these perilous years should receive a reward for my, I mean their, sacrifice. For as PM, my need is far greater than anyone else's.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,201
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    I like that, a gutsy call.

    However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
    Can I refer you to this piece...

    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/05/16/the-case-for-labour-making-an-electoral-pact/

    The scope for the anti-Tory vote become much more efficient on its own is limited. They start with 317 seats in which they won 47.5% or more of the vote. Only once (Newcastle-under-Lyme, 2017) have the Tories hit that percentage and lost since 1979.

    Here are the other 48 seats:

    Constituency, Con Share, First/Second, Majority
    YNYS MON, 35.5%, ConLab, 5.4 pp
    KENSINGTON, 38.3%, ConLab, 0.3 pp
    WIMBLEDON, 38.4%, ConLib, 1.2 pp
    ASHFIELD, 39.3%, ConOth, 11.7 pp
    CITIES OF LONDON AND WESTMINSTER, 39.9%, ConLib, 9.3 pp
    BURNLEY, 40.3%, ConLab, 3.5 pp
    NORTH WEST DURHAM, 41.9%, ConLab, 2.4 pp
    CARSHALTON AND WALLINGTON, 42.4%, ConLib, 1.3 pp
    WEST ABERDEENSHIRE AND KINCARDINE, 42.7%, ConSNP, 1.6 pp
    BLYTH VALLEY, 42.7%, ConLab, 1.7 pp
    HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON, 43.1%, ConLab, 1.4 pp
    BRIDGEND, 43.1%, ConLab, 2.7 pp
    DON VALLEY, 43.2%, ConLab, 8.0 pp
    DELYN, 43.7%, ConLab, 2.3 pp
    BURY SOUTH, 43.8%, ConLab, 0.8 pp
    FINCHLEY AND GOLDERS GREEN, 43.8%, ConLib, 11.9 pp
    DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY, 44.1%, ConSNP, 3.5 pp
    CLWYD SOUTH, 44.7%, ConLab, 3.4 pp
    CHIPPING BARNET, 44.7%, ConLab, 2.1 pp
    GUILDFORD, 44.9%, ConLib, 5.7 pp
    ROTHER VALLEY, 45.1%, ConLab, 13.0 pp
    DERBY NORTH, 45.2%, ConLab, 5.4 pp
    WYCOMBE, 45.2%, ConLab, 7.7 pp
    LEIGH, 45.3%, ConLab, 4.2 pp
    MORAY, 45.3%, ConSNP, 1.1 pp
    WREXHAM, 45.3%, ConLab, 6.4 pp
    BOLTON NORTH EAST, 45.4%, ConLab, 0.9 pp
    STOKE-ON-TRENT CENTRAL, 45.4%, ConLab, 2.1 pp
    GEDLING, 45.5%, ConLab, 1.4 pp
    WATFORD, 45.5%, ConLab, 7.6 pp
    WARRINGTON SOUTH, 45.5%, ConLab, 3.2 pp
    HIGH PEAK, 45.9%, ConLab, 1.1 pp
    CHEADLE, 46.0%, ConLib, 4.2 pp
    DUMFRIESSHIRE, CLYDESDALE AND TWEEDDALE, 46.0%, ConSNP, 7.7 pp
    TRURO AND FALMOUTH, 46.0%, ConLab, 7.7 pp
    REDCAR, 46.1%, ConLab, 8.6 pp
    ABERCONWY, 46.1%, ConLab, 6.4 pp
    BURY NORTH, 46.2%, ConLab, 0.2 pp
    BIRMINGHAM, NORTHFIELD, 46.3%, ConLab, 3.8 pp
    SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE, 46.3%, ConLib, 4.3 pp
    VALE OF CLWYD, 46.4%, ConLab, 4.9 pp
    DEWSBURY, 46.4%, ConLab, 2.8 pp
    WEST BROMWICH EAST, 46.7%, ConLab, 4.4 pp
    PETERBOROUGH, 46.7%, ConLab, 5.4 pp
    HITCHIN AND HARPENDEN, 47.1%, ConLib, 11.7 pp
    SEDGEFIELD, 47.2%, ConLab, 10.9 pp
    WAKEFIELD, 47.3%, ConLab, 7.5 pp
    BOLSOVER, 47.4%, ConLab, 11.5 pp

    Okay, so boundary changes make this difficult to assess (the cities seat is being split up, etc.), but the Tory vote needs to be eroded in most of these for them to come into play.
    Isam will collect.
  • DavidL said:

    I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.

    When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.

    The problem for the Tories is that Boris hasn't a fucking clue how to actually deliver things. The debacle over the tax rise for social care that doesn't give a penny to social care and thus fucks further the NHS being a prime example.

    On paper they absolutely should win again. Big majority, broad base, ineffective opposition. And yet people now expect delivery of the promises they backed. Boris and the clown car have no idea how to do this, people get quickly bored of empty rhetoric even when they used to like the speaker, it can go south and quickly.

    Unless of course the inevitable happens. The Tories are very good at removing the leader when they are the problem. The Tory government adopting many labour policies absolutely could be a route to another 10 years, but not if they are seen as incompetent and uncaring. The Coffey gaffe yesterday does them no favours. But switch the leader? Then I'd anticipate isam's bet winning.
    And the 1992 win required the Conservatives to ditch not only their leader, but their flagship policy. And whilst Rishi was undoubtedly heir (all too) apparent until last week, that seems a lot less obvious today. And even then, the Conservative majority fell by 80 seats.

    That doesn't mean that the Conservatives will lose their majority next time. A lot of it depends on whether it's better to think of politics as being near the end of Year 2 in a 5 year cycle, or in Year 1 of a 3 year cycle after a Covid hibernation.

    But yes. A Conservative win next time is likely, but I'm not sure it's overwhelmingly so. And it depends a lot on when the current trend breaks.
    I know @Charles tried to dismiss it, but the Coffey comment was my canary dying in the coal mine. I know the red wall having lived most of my life in various bits of it. Punters do not like to be patronised or fobbed off. When they do they show their displeasure - hence the general binning of Labour. But also the swathe of independent groups who often are formed when local Tories are pillocks.

    You cannot tell people on UC that the cut is just 2 hours work. Because it isn't. Patronising hard-working red wallers, telling them that black is white is a sure way to abruptly lose their vote.

    Tories need to be very careful. Punters have been promised levelling up money AND Brexit benefits to jobs, communities and the NHS. Unless that shows up there will be trouble. But significantly worse will be what Coffey shows they are likely to do - deny there are any problems. "We haven't delivered but x is the excuse" is better than "oh look, a new hospital!" as they open a new ward.
  • rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    I like that, a gutsy call.

    However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
    Tactical voting is the dog that almost never barks. Every single election we hear people bore on about how this time tactical voting will save the day and it never does. How many "stop Brexit" tactical voting sites were there in 2019 and what difference did they make?

    At the next election my vote is currently up for grabs, and I'm currently leaning towards voting Lib Dem - but if Davey reaches a pact with Starmer that would be one way for him to lose my vote.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 67,843
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    1) Beware of extrapolation from small datasets
    And from a different era
    The point is it doesn’t happen often, and it’s rare because under our system it’s very, very hard work.

    Speaking for myself, I would love to see the Tories evicted from office, but it’s tough to see a pathway for them to lose their overall majority. A Blair style swing would do it but not much else.

    What I think is more plausible is that they will end up with a majority in single figures followed a couple of years later by another election.
    You are probably right.

    A plausible route is mass defections of educated Tories to the LibDems in the Home Counties, as the Tories continue to take their offering down market.
    Why else do you think they junked the planning reforms?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,627
    Off topic. Is it too soon for Strictly betting talk?

    My thoughts so far. Rhys Stevenson has had professional dance training and I think will be very good. Ticks the box for reaching the final 3 (or is it a final 4 now I cant remember). But i think he will be too good too soon to meet the improving likeable amateur profile needed to win.

    So I think a back for the final but a lay for the win. Currently 7/1 3rd fav. But not much e/w on offer yet or reach the final betting. Think he will shorten after his opening dance.
  • TazTaz Posts: 1,629

    DavidL said:

    I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.

    When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.

    The problem for the Tories is that Boris hasn't a fucking clue how to actually deliver things. The debacle over the tax rise for social care that doesn't give a penny to social care and thus fucks further the NHS being a prime example.

    On paper they absolutely should win again. Big majority, broad base, ineffective opposition. And yet people now expect delivery of the promises they backed. Boris and the clown car have no idea how to do this, people get quickly bored of empty rhetoric even when they used to like the speaker, it can go south and quickly.

    Unless of course the inevitable happens. The Tories are very good at removing the leader when they are the problem. The Tory government adopting many labour policies absolutely could be a route to another 10 years, but not if they are seen as incompetent and uncaring. The Coffey gaffe yesterday does them no favours. But switch the leader? Then I'd anticipate isam's bet winning.
    And the 1992 win required the Conservatives to ditch not only their leader, but their flagship policy. And whilst Rishi was undoubtedly heir (all too) apparent until last week, that seems a lot less obvious today. And even then, the Conservative majority fell by 80 seats.

    That doesn't mean that the Conservatives will lose their majority next time. A lot of it depends on whether it's better to think of politics as being near the end of Year 2 in a 5 year cycle, or in Year 1 of a 3 year cycle after a Covid hibernation.

    But yes. A Conservative win next time is likely, but I'm not sure it's overwhelmingly so. And it depends a lot on when the current trend breaks.
    I know @Charles tried to dismiss it, but the Coffey comment was my canary dying in the coal mine. I know the red wall having lived most of my life in various bits of it. Punters do not like to be patronised or fobbed off. When they do they show their displeasure - hence the general binning of Labour. But also the swathe of independent groups who often are formed when local Tories are pillocks.

    You cannot tell people on UC that the cut is just 2 hours work. Because it isn't. Patronising hard-working red wallers, telling them that black is white is a sure way to abruptly lose their vote.

    Tories need to be very careful. Punters have been promised levelling up money AND Brexit benefits to jobs, communities and the NHS. Unless that shows up there will be trouble. But significantly worse will be what Coffey shows they are likely to do - deny there are any problems. "We haven't delivered but x is the excuse" is better than "oh look, a new hospital!" as they open a new ward.
    That final paragraph. Absolutely. I live in Red Wall in the north east and we were promised, and I do mean promised, all of this if we voted leave. I went remain as I didn’t trust them but many thought it worth a punt. If your reality is minimum wage jobs or agency work what do you have to lose. You’ve already got the sneering contempt of remainers anyway. After the 2008 crash the economy Raced ahead in the south and up here it meandered. Woe betide them if they fail to deliver.
  • A Tory majority has to be the most likely outcome. However, given how hard the government is trying to alienate around 50% of the population, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the desire to get rid of it becomes so great that tactical voting becomes a thing.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,844
    Looking at Betdata I think that Isam got on at about between 1pm and 6pm yesterday when there were trades on Betfair ranging from a 37.% chance to a 38% one. We do know from Betdata that just £3k has been wagered in this market over the past ten days. If he did indeed get those odds it was a great bet.
  • rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    I like that, a gutsy call.

    However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
    Tactical voting is the dog that almost never barks. Every single election we hear people bore on about how this time tactical voting will save the day and it never does. How many "stop Brexit" tactical voting sites were there in 2019 and what difference did they make?

    At the next election my vote is currently up for grabs, and I'm currently leaning towards voting Lib Dem - but if Davey reaches a pact with Starmer that would be one way for him to lose my vote.

    There was a hell of a lot of tactical voting in 1997.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,201

    A Tory majority has to be the most likely outcome. However, given how hard the government is trying to alienate around 50% of the population, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the desire to get rid of it becomes so great that tactical voting becomes a thing.

    At least 55% of the population will be alienated if they have a majority of 100.....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,664
    Mr. 64, not at all au fait with the current crop of persons but your reasoning seems sound.

    Still annoyed the BBC gerrymandered their own contest with Lisa Snowdon and Rachel Stevens to guarantee Tom Chambers a place in a three-way final (which was utterly contrary to both natural justice and my own betting situation).
  • tlg86 said:

    Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.

    Blair owned Scotland in those days.
    The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.

    They will want a referendum, and money of course.

    There is no need for any kind of deal with the SNP. If the SNP wants to bring down a minority Labour government and so risk returning the Tories to power that is a decision the party will have to justify to the Scottish electorate in the subsequent general election.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,398

    tlg86 said:

    Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.

    Blair owned Scotland in those days.
    The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.

    They will want a referendum, and money of course.
    The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
    He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.

    Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
  • rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    I like that, a gutsy call.

    However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
    Tactical voting is the dog that almost never barks. Every single election we hear people bore on about how this time tactical voting will save the day and it never does. How many "stop Brexit" tactical voting sites were there in 2019 and what difference did they make?

    At the next election my vote is currently up for grabs, and I'm currently leaning towards voting Lib Dem - but if Davey reaches a pact with Starmer that would be one way for him to lose my vote.
    I can't see how the LibDems agree a pact with anyone. From a LD perspective promising pre-election to work with one side only torpedoes the who point in not being aligned to Labour ot Tory.

    This is the lesson that was rapidly learned in Scotland by the rise and now dominance of the SNP. Political parties do not have to be aligned only to "are you Labour" or "are you Tory"."
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 3,816
    edited September 14
    There is insufficient data and too many unknowns at the moment to distinguish between the prospect of the Tories losing a net total of 40 seats and not losing a net total of 40 seats, which is the only relevant consideration for this bet. The prospect of a Labour majority and all other outcomes apart from NOM can be dismissed except as black swans. So the answer is that a Tory majority is a just under 50% chance.

    Backing this outcome at 40% would be rational, but so is backing NOM. Neither attracts me.

    Analysis of seats individually has only limited and reflection on current majorities has little resonance. Quite a lot of Tory seats are new ground and could be quickly lost to a populist message.

    Someone who now thinks the Tories actually will win next time come what may (unlike me) would do better IMHO to wait until some (more) wheels come off the government and jump in at better odds.

    But it is not correct in my view to be reasonably sure that the combined efforts of Labour, LD, SNP and some right leaning populist could not together take 40 seats off the Tories.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 11,743

    tlg86 said:

    Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.

    Blair owned Scotland in those days.
    The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.

    They will want a referendum, and money of course.
    The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
    Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.

    Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,844

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    I like that, a gutsy call.

    However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
    Tactical voting is the dog that almost never barks. Every single election we hear people bore on about how this time tactical voting will save the day and it never does. How many "stop Brexit" tactical voting sites were there in 2019 and what difference did they make?

    At the next election my vote is currently up for grabs, and I'm currently leaning towards voting Lib Dem - but if Davey reaches a pact with Starmer that would be one way for him to lose my vote.

    There was a hell of a lot of tactical voting in 1997.

    Indeed. At GE1997 the LDs nearly doubled their seat total on a reduced national vote share.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,708
    edited September 14

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    I like that, a gutsy call.

    However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
    Tactical voting is the dog that almost never barks. Every single election we hear people bore on about how this time tactical voting will save the day and it never does. How many "stop Brexit" tactical voting sites were there in 2019 and what difference did they make?

    At the next election my vote is currently up for grabs, and I'm currently leaning towards voting Lib Dem - but if Davey reaches a pact with Starmer that would be one way for him to lose my vote.
    I can't see how the LibDems agree a pact with anyone. From a LD perspective promising pre-election to work with one side only torpedoes the who point in not being aligned to Labour ot Tory.

    This is the lesson that was rapidly learned in Scotland by the rise and now dominance of the SNP. Political parties do not have to be aligned only to "are you Labour" or "are you Tory"."

    There is no need for any pacts. If the electorate want to get rid of this government it will find ways to do it. A ton of Labour supporters voted LibDem in 1997 in seats where the LDs were the challengers - and stuck with them al the way through to 2015. For 20 years or so the anti-Tory party was the biggest in the UK. It has been replaced by the anti-Labour party. I think that's the way to see things, certainly in England. Under FPTP, so many votes are negative, rather than positive. That's why the Tory number is always the most interesting in any opinion poll. Once it starts dipping below 40, things begin to get vaguely interesting.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 19,632

    A Tory majority has to be the most likely outcome. However, given how hard the government is trying to alienate around 50% of the population, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the desire to get rid of it becomes so great that tactical voting becomes a thing.

    No amount of tactical voting will stop the Tories winning the next election if the Tories get anywhere near the 44.7% of the GB vote that they got in 2019. Labour and the Lib Dems need to eat into that (or hope Tories stay at home) to get them out of Downing Street.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,708
    edited September 14
    tlg86 said:

    A Tory majority has to be the most likely outcome. However, given how hard the government is trying to alienate around 50% of the population, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the desire to get rid of it becomes so great that tactical voting becomes a thing.

    No amount of tactical voting will stop the Tories winning the next election if the Tories get anywhere near the 44.7% of the GB vote that they got in 2019. Labour and the Lib Dems need to eat into that (or hope Tories stay at home) to get them out of Downing Street.

    Yep - I agree.

  • rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    I like that, a gutsy call.

    However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
    Tactical voting is the dog that almost never barks. Every single election we hear people bore on about how this time tactical voting will save the day and it never does. How many "stop Brexit" tactical voting sites were there in 2019 and what difference did they make?

    At the next election my vote is currently up for grabs, and I'm currently leaning towards voting Lib Dem - but if Davey reaches a pact with Starmer that would be one way for him to lose my vote.

    There was a hell of a lot of tactical voting in 1997.

    Indeed. At GE1997 the LDs nearly doubled their seat total on a reduced national vote share.
    There was also an attempt at organising tactical voting in 2019. Sadly the Labour machine decided that the uppity jew winning her seat was too big a threat and sent armies into north London to stop her.
  • rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    I like that, a gutsy call.

    However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
    Tactical voting is the dog that almost never barks. Every single election we hear people bore on about how this time tactical voting will save the day and it never does. How many "stop Brexit" tactical voting sites were there in 2019 and what difference did they make?

    At the next election my vote is currently up for grabs, and I'm currently leaning towards voting Lib Dem - but if Davey reaches a pact with Starmer that would be one way for him to lose my vote.

    There was a hell of a lot of tactical voting in 1997.

    Hence why I said almost never.

    But 1997 was the exception not the rule, but its been treated as the rule ever since.

    Plus actually

    Indeed. At GE1997 the LDs nearly doubled their seat total on a reduced national vote share.

    That's utterly misleading though. The Lib Dems lost a 1.0% share, but the Tories lost an 11.2% share. So there was a 5.1% Tory -> LD swing.

    You should expect LD gains on a 5% UNS even without any tactical voting so to claim the LDs had a reduced vote but to omit that the Tories lost considerably more is not the full picture.

    If the LDs had gained 1% while the Tories had lost 9.2% it would have been the same swing.
  • rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    I like that, a gutsy call.

    However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
    Tactical voting is the dog that almost never barks. Every single election we hear people bore on about how this time tactical voting will save the day and it never does. How many "stop Brexit" tactical voting sites were there in 2019 and what difference did they make?

    At the next election my vote is currently up for grabs, and I'm currently leaning towards voting Lib Dem - but if Davey reaches a pact with Starmer that would be one way for him to lose my vote.

    There was a hell of a lot of tactical voting in 1997.

    Not just then. Consider two other counterexamples.

    TMay got a higher vote share in 2017 than Dave did in 2015. The majority vanished because the anti-Conservative vote was distributed more inconveniently.

    The Conservative vote barely moved between 1979 and 1992. What changed was the willingness of non-Conservatives to vote for the best placed alternative, whoever they are. And that fed through to Conservative majorities of 144 and 21.

    And in all those cases, it was a pretty accurate reflection of the overall will of the people.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 3,816

    tlg86 said:

    Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.

    Blair owned Scotland in those days.
    The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.

    They will want a referendum, and money of course.
    The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
    Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.

    Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
    Nicola is in a fascinating position. Currently she is exactly where she wants to be; any change would spoil it.

    Boris would triumph of course if he allowed a Ref2 and won; but the tiny chance (5-10%?) he would lose will be enough to stop him.

    Nicola of course is finished if there is Ref2 and she loses; but her real nightmare is what happens if the outsider romps home and she wins?

    Only Salmond has nothing to lose from Ref2, and that is because he has nothing to lose.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 16,895



    There is no need for any pacts. If the electorate want to get rid of this government it will find ways to do it. A ton of Labour supporters voted LibDem in 1997 in seats where the LDs were the challengers - and stuck with them al the way through to 2015. For 20 years or so the anti-Tory party was the biggest in the UK. It has been replaced by the anti-Labour party. I think that's the way to see things, certainly in England. Under FPTP, so many votes are negative, rather than positive. That's why the Tory number is always the most interesting in any opinion poll. Once it starts dipping below 40, things begin to get vaguely interesting.

    Correct. Formal pacts are probably more trouble than they're worth, but parties mostly know where to focus their efforts. Labour does much better than the LibDems in in SE outside London in every poll, but the LibDems do better in elections in most seats in the region, simply because in many seats it's obvious that they have a better chance of beating the Tories. The reverse also works up to a point - in Canterbury, even though the LibDems insisted on putting up a candidate when their previous one endorsed Labour, the LD vote dropped by a third as people could see the Tory threat.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,627
    Year of next GE.

    Betway are quite out of line at 3/1 for 2023. Others are 9/4 or shorter. Havent checked the exchange.

    2024 or later is best priced 8/13.

    I'm sure one of these is a winner as cant see a 2022 election.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 19,632

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Some points:

    1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.

    2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.

    3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.

    I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.

    A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.

    The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
    I like that, a gutsy call.

    However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
    Tactical voting is the dog that almost never barks. Every single election we hear people bore on about how this time tactical voting will save the day and it never does. How many "stop Brexit" tactical voting sites were there in 2019 and what difference did they make?

    At the next election my vote is currently up for grabs, and I'm currently leaning towards voting Lib Dem - but if Davey reaches a pact with Starmer that would be one way for him to lose my vote.

    There was a hell of a lot of tactical voting in 1997.

    Not just then. Consider two other counterexamples.

    TMay got a higher vote share in 2017 than Dave did in 2015. The majority vanished because the anti-Conservative vote was distributed more inconveniently.

    The Conservative vote barely moved between 1979 and 1992. What changed was the willingness of non-Conservatives to vote for the best placed alternative, whoever they are. And that fed through to Conservative majorities of 144 and 21.

    And in all those cases, it was a pretty accurate reflection of the overall will of the people.
    Whereas, in 2005, I'm not sure the will of the people was delivered...

    Labour - 36.1% of the GB vote

    Lab share of the vote, Wins, Win Rate
    Under 37.5%, 15, 6%
    37.5% to 42.5%, 54, 74%
    42.5% to 47.5%, 104, 100%
    Over 47.5%, 182, 100%

    Total, 355, 57%


    Compare with the Conservatives in 2019...

    Conservatives - 44.7% of the GB vote

    Con share of the vote, Wins, Win Rate
    Under 37.5%, 1, 0%
    37.5% to 42.5%, 7, 16%
    42.5% to 47.5%, 40, 85%
    Over 47.5%, 317, 100%

    Total, 365, 58%
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 33,746

    tlg86 said:

    Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.

    Blair owned Scotland in those days.
    The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.

    They will want a referendum, and money of course.
    The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
    Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.

    Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
    Once the various court cases get through the system we will see if nippy if still around, given they will have to show the evidence this time. Likely Macbeth will be crowned long before the next election.
Sign In or Register to comment.