politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As most of the results are now in, the papers begin to give

FPT
Tykejohnno said:

Front pages -

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/98546/the_daily_mail_friday_23rd_may_2014.html

Interesting mix of photos of politicians on the front pages:

Express going with a standard, ecstatic Farage pic.

the Mail going with one of Ed M looing at something with total contempt it looks like (seriously, the only time he's looked harsher is that one at Wimbledon with him glaring at Cameron) and one of Farage not just beaming ecstatically, but eyes clenched shut and teeth together, so he looks more like a man who's taken a cricket ball to the groin, but he's wearing a box so he's feeling pretty ok about it,

and the Independent going for one of Farage looking immensely satisified, but in a dignified way as he appreciately sniffs his pint at arms length.

Dixie said:

Still not understanding the Media's view that Labour didn't do well. They've picked up more seats, more Councils and they are dominant in London.

It's just an equivalent thing - this government is not exactly popular, and the LDs are, while not finished as a political force, will possibly never again regain a status they had up until 2010, so for there to even be a chance for the Tories to get a plurality at this stage is seen as disappointing for Labour, and the scale of the win was not so enormous as to erase that hope from some Tories.

maaarsh said:

anotherDave said:

Have Thrasher and Thingamybob given out NEV numbers yet?

Thrasher was on Sky earlier saying UKIP was slightly down but to be expected given the constituencies don't suit them.

What a joke when the so called experts are using constituencies as an excuse for the national equivalent vote figures.

He's probably a UKIP supporter. Academia is rotten with them.

maaarsh said:

Dixie said:

Still not understanding the Media's view that Labour didn't do well. They've picked up more seats, more Councils and they are dominant in London.

It's one year out from an election in a bunch of seats which suit them very well, and they're struggling to reach 35%. At this rate they'll be in the 20s again next year.

Wrong. Labour are NOT losing votes to the Tories. There is a good chance that some of the lost votes to UKIP will unwind back to Labour.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?

They'd have to actually wait for the counting that way. With this the 'experts' can just check 15 seats and then tell us what it is, and then rush off to make TV appearances where they say things which are either incorrect or show they don't understand the methodology they're supposed to be applying.

Latest popular vote tallies:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGZMVENacEVqMUI0bWZaQk13c041S3c&usp=sheets_web#gid=0

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Another thing those spinning the" UKIP did worse than last year line" forgot is that in a lot of London seats UKIP only put up one candidate out of a maximum of three which would depress their vote share.

It shows a certain maturity that UKIP are not willing to put up unsuitable candidates to boost their poll share.

Farage on TV earlier today said that they lacked the resources to put up candidates everywhere, no mention of doing it for some noble purpose (not that it is especially democratic to deprive the voters of a choice if you won't win). More likely they would run a full slate if they could.

Will Tower Hamlets Labour survive the night? Literally

Dixie said:

Labour should not be in crisis. Weird

They're not, I think. Rather, most of the usual suspects in the party are saying they should be in more of a crisis. It's the same way we can usually ignore the regular Tory rebels, because while they might occasionally be right about a problem with their party that needs addressing, since that is their default stance to varying degrees, it has no impact.

AndyJS said:

Latest popular vote tallies:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGZMVENacEVqMUI0bWZaQk13c041S3c&usp=sheets_web#gid=0

Great stuff, as always Andy! Many thanks

Quincel said:

BobaFett said:

MrJones said:

maaarsh said:

anotherDave said:

Have Thrasher and Thingamybob given out NEV numbers yet?

Thrasher was on Sky earlier saying UKIP was slightly down but to be expected given the constituencies don't suit them.

What a joke when the so called experts are using constituencies as an excuse for the national equivalent vote figures.

We're in a twilight zone where politics has balkanized and UNS models are broken but the political and media class are still pretending UNS models apply.

You might have a nut of a point there. Labour surging behind all expectations in London.

Liberal vote holding up in some seats, decimated elsewhere

Ukip rolling home in the East, but down nationally.

Maybe we aren't One Nation anymore.

I've got bets on the LDs winning at least 33 seats and on them losing at least 151 deposits. Unbelievably they could both happen (though I wouldn't count on it by any means).

Sounds like some smart bets. They really should not bother to put up candidates in every seat to save some money, but thesedays they'd probably be too worried about how that would be spun.

BobaFett said:

maaarsh said:

anotherDave said:

Have Thrasher and Thingamybob given out NEV numbers yet?

Thrasher was on Sky earlier saying UKIP was slightly down but to be expected given the constituencies don't suit them.

What a joke when the so called experts are using constituencies as an excuse for the national equivalent vote figures.

Indeed. An utterly laughable day where no bugger has been able to say what's going on from start to finish. The geography of the seats in play should be factored into their analysis, so we get this garbage: "oh London is a leftie place" "these seats don't suit Ukip".

Utterly useless.

Have a model to model three party politics. Shriek loudly that the 4th party doesn't exist, or will shrink away, or is just a protest that doesn't matter. Post expected gains/losses to the three parties in your model, and when asked for the other party say you haven't got a number for them as they aren't in your model.

Then, when the results for the three parties come in not as you said from your flawed model, say its because the parties are doing badly, not because your model is doing badly. Don't forget, the narrative across all the media has been that UKIP aren't a serious party therefore don't actually matter except as a side show. The media can't be wrong therefore the actual result must be.

https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/ElectionResults?utm_source=home_page&utm_medium=advert&utm_campaign=election_results_2014

AndyJS said:

Anyone have a link to the Redbridge results? I've searched their website I can't find them.

corporeal said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?

Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.

UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.

The problem is when these 'seasonally adjusted' type figures are botched, UKIP are less than 3% down on last year in real vote share in massively less favourable seats (Thratcher's own words). The idea that their real national equivalent share has fallen is for the birds.

corporeal said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?

Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.

UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.

But you just said:

"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"

BobaFett said:

maaarsh said:

anotherDave said:

Have Thrasher and Thingamybob given out NEV numbers yet?

Thrasher was on Sky earlier saying UKIP was slightly down but to be expected given the constituencies don't suit them.

What a joke when the so called experts are using constituencies as an excuse for the national equivalent vote figures.

Indeed. An utterly laughable day where no bugger has been able to say what's going on from start to finish. The geography of the seats in play should be factored into their analysis, so we get this garbage: "oh London is a leftie place" "these seats don't suit Ukip".

Utterly useless.

Back in 2010 UKIP lost 4 of its councillors to get back to 9, they were behind the BNP, the Liberals, the greens, combined 'residents'. They were absolubtely nowhere.We know that when a party gains strength and loses strength it doesn't do so uniformly, it is also co-dependent on how the other parties are doing. But generally we know say that Solihull & Berwigk is a decent indicator of whether the Tories or Lib Dems are doing better. Basildon is a decent barometer for Labour/Conservative fortunes.

UKIP have never had results like this in these seats before. They haven't taken 10 seats in Rotherham or had tonnes of members in Essex councils. Now we know they are probably going to be strong in the east and perhaps weaker in London (The polls before these indicated a weakness in London, certainly) but the calculators don't take account of that because they can't, because UKIP have never surged (In these seats) before. This NEV calculation will of course in time become accurate for UKIP, but right now it is being fed the seed data.

Can anyone direct me to a summary of the most recent European election voting intention polls.

stjohn said:

Can anyone direct me to a summary of the most recent European election voting intention polls.

Wikipedia page for the election has them all at the bottom.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SKY News 'projecting' a UKIP MP for Castle Point next year!

Unfortunately there is no betting market

TSE reckons that Great Grimsby might be a decent target for them. And when you think about it... old Labour/working class Tory east coast with an old school non PC MP (Mitchell) standing down, the vote split perfectly 30-30 Lab-Con with 10% combined UKIP/BNP at GE2010, well I'm on at 16-1,

Curtice reckoned it might go too.

12-1 may still be value though...

Redbridge popular votes (highest vote):

Lab 38,332 (41.50%)
Con 28,801 (31.18%)
LD 10,370 (11.23%)
UKIP 5,822 (6.30%)
Green 4,583 (4.96%)

Changes since 2010 locals:

Lab +5.66%
Con -4.06%
LD -11.24%
UKIP +5.04%
Green +2.74%

Swing, Con to Lab: 4.86%

Labour need a 5.76% swing to win Ilford North in 2015.

Castle Point is a bit misleading because the Canvey Islands Independents win lots of seats and we don't know whether they favour Tories or UKIP in general elections.

corporeal said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

corporeal said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?

Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.

UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.

But you just said:

"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"

Yes?

We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.

So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.

Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.

maaarsh said:

So when Thrasher goes on Sky and says that he would expect UKIP's national equivalent vote to have fallen because the constituencies are much less favourable, that's a sign that we should offer unequivocal faith in the experts?

I don't give a fig for their political persuasion; the numbers are funky whether they vote left or right. UKIP's NEV is apparently less than their actual share of the votes in a set of elections where they didn't field a full slate and were operating in unfavorable territory (as confirmed and used as the explanation by Mr Thrasher).

I didn't hear Thrasher, but these are the guys who were near-universally ridiculed at 10.00 pm on the evening of the 6th May 2010 for producing an exit-poll model, which almost no-one believed (including myself). It turned out to be quite uncannily accurate.

To understand whether their adjustments are plausible, one would need to look at a lot of factors. For example, the extent to which the fact that a party doesn't have a full slate of candidates reflects the fact that they are weaker in some areas. And don't forget Scotland and Wales, which partly offset London. This is not something you can easily do on the back of an envelope.

AndyJS said:

Redbridge popular votes (highest vote):

Lab 38,332 (41.50%)
Con 28,801 (31.18%)
LD 10,370 (11.23%)
UKIP 5,822 (6.30%)
Green 4,583 (4.96%)

Changes since 2010 locals:

Lab +5.66%
Con -4.06%
LD -11.24%
UKIP +5.04%
Green +2.74%

Swing, Con to Lab: 4.86%

Labour need a 5.76% swing to win Ilford North in 2015.

I wonder what the 2014 swing was in the actual llford North wards.

BobaFett said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BobaFett said:

maaarsh said:

anotherDave said:

Have Thrasher and Thingamybob given out NEV numbers yet?

Thrasher was on Sky earlier saying UKIP was slightly down but to be expected given the constituencies don't suit them.

What a joke when the so called experts are using constituencies as an excuse for the national equivalent vote figures.

Indeed. An utterly laughable day where no bugger has been able to say what's going on from start to finish. The geography of the seats in play should be factored into their analysis, so we get this garbage: "oh London is a leftie place" "these seats don't suit Ukip".

Utterly useless.

Have a model to model three party politics. Shriek loudly that the 4th party doesn't exist, or will shrink away, or is just a protest that doesn't matter. Post expected gains/losses to the three parties in your model, and when asked for the other party say you haven't got a number for them as they aren't in your model.

Then, when the results for the three parties come in not as you said from your flawed model, say its because the parties are doing badly, not because your model is doing badly. Don't forget, the narrative across all the media has been that UKIP aren't a serious party therefore don't actually matter except as a side show. The media can't be wrong therefore the actual result must be.

That's about that strength of it. I think it was @Pulpstar who on a previous thread raised the prospect of Labour winning a majority with 30% of the vote, with wafer thin majorities up north and the Tories nibbled back by Ukip down south. I don't see it happening but I certainly see where he is coming from.

Heh, Labour won't get quite that lucky, but its not ouiside the realms of probability...

Labour could also pile up such large amounts of votes in London that the Conservatives take the rest of the country and gain a nice majority as UKIP increases the efficiency of the Conservative vote by running them close in previous safe seats in Kent and Essex thus increasing the efficiency of their vote.

Probably, as we've seen here a bit of both... GE2015 is tricky to predict with the UKIP surge.

Pulpstar said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SKY News 'projecting' a UKIP MP for Castle Point next year!

Unfortunately there is no betting market

TSE reckons that Great Grimsby might be a decent target for them. And when you think about it... old Labour/working class Tory east coast with an old school non PC MP (Mitchell) standing down, the vote split perfectly 30-30 Lab-Con with 10% combined UKIP/BNP at GE2010, well I'm on at 16-1,

Curtice reckoned it might go too.

12-1 may still be value though...

Could be. It's the right neck of the woods.

Cleethorpes, not a million miles away, was on offer at 33/1 with Sid James a while back. I think they got that one wrong. They have (wisely) wiped their board now.

The price that really amazes me though is the 5/6 you could get today about UKIP winning one or more Westminster seat at the GE. Personally I think Farage is a shoo-in if he stands anywhere sensible, which he probably will. I can even see his Party winning upwards of six seats, given a half-decent wind, but the betting markets say I am wrong.

Maybe I am....

AndreaParma_82 said:

They are still counting Lewisham council too.

Tower Hamlets have not started counting council seats. At this rate they will barely finish in time for Euro count

Shortage of abacuses?

What do people expect from Ashcroft's marginals tomorrow? Part of me wonders why he'd be unveiling it at the Tory spring conference unless it was good for the Tories. Bit incendiary otherwise.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

corporeal said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

corporeal said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?

Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.

UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.

But you just said:

"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"

Yes?

We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.

So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.

Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.

This is always going to be the case while councils in England work to a 4-year cycle while the various parliaments work to a 5-year cycle.

From the Times

David Cameron’s ability to hold his party together in the face of the Ukip surge will be tested to its limits today as a new poll is expected to show the Tories falling behind in key marginal seats.

A survey by Lord Ashcroft of about 25 key parliamentary constituencies, due to be published today, is understood to indicate that Ukip’s vote will hold up until next year’s election and add credibility to Labour claims that it is ahead in seats that it needs to win.

Milton Keynes final result Lab 25 Con 18 LD 13 UKIP 1

New boundaries but old council was Con 20 Lab 16 LD 15

Richard_Nabavi said:

maaarsh said:

As for Thrasher, I did enjoy him following up his much less favourable comment by saying that attempts to downplay UKIP's results were 'mean' - who knows if this is a sly dig at OGH, or Fisher et al.

UKIP did a very poor job of expectations management, so if people are seeing this as a poor result it's partly the party's own fault. In terms of the locals, they don't seem to have advanced compared with last year, and may have gone backwards slightly.

Don't get me wrong, though - I still think they will clean up big-time in the Euros.

Fair enough - in like for like areas I can't see any signs of a retreat - they've won more seats than last year, often in much more interesting areas. Winning the popular vote in Rotherham is a real wow result.

No_Offence_Alan said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

corporeal said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

corporeal said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?

Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.

UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.

But you just said:

"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"

Yes?

We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.

So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.

Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.

This is always going to be the case while councils in England work to a 4-year cycle while the various parliaments work to a 5-year cycle.

Not the cycle, but I was talking about the actual seats compared year-on-year.

maaarsh said:

Fair enough - in like for like areas I can't see any signs of a retreat - they've won more seats than last year, often in much more interesting areas. Winning the popular vote in Rotherham is a real wow result.

Yes, they certainly seem to have continued making inroads in Labour strongholds.

murali_s said:

maaarsh said:

Dixie said:

Still not understanding the Media's view that Labour didn't do well. They've picked up more seats, more Councils and they are dominant in London.

It's one year out from an election in a bunch of seats which suit them very well, and they're struggling to reach 35%. At this rate they'll be in the 20s again next year.

Wrong. Labour are NOT losing votes to the Tories. There is a good chance that some of the lost votes to UKIP will unwind back to Labour.

But a lot of the votes going from Labour in 2012 to UKIP in 2014 were LD in 2010.

SouthamObserver1 said:

This new four party system will take a while to be properly understood by all of us. The past is no real help. But Labour getting 31% in a GE and basically being a majority government should, hopefully, give a few folk pause for thought.

UKIP was always going to have a great set of results this time. The key thing is how the other parties react. And the direction UKIP takes when it comes to write its 2015 manifesto.

2015GE might be a completely new type of election, I think the closest analogy is the 1922 or 1918 GE.

Previous information was that Lewisham was doing its council seat count tomorrow, with the mayoral count today. But I don't know if they've changed that.

UKIP apparently did poorly in Tunbridge Wells.

Not surprising — you can't really expect to do well in Rotherham and the prosperous home counties at the same time.

maarsh. Thanks for the Wikipedia link.

So nearly all recent polls have UKIP in the 25-35% range. They look certain to get the most votes, so less than 25% would be a real shock. More than 35% would be a major surprise.

Ladbrokes have 25-30% at 13/8 and 30-35% at 15/8.

I have backed both the above outcomes at effective combined odds of just worse than 2/5. It's hard to see their percentage vote falling outside this 10% band.

SouthamObserver1 said:

Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.

OGH seems to think it's very relevant that these meta-numbers suggest UKIP's vote has fallen over 25% in a year. Some people think those numbers are obviously barmy, and others thing questioning those numbers is the preserve of fruitcakes and loons.

FPT

dr_spyn said:

twitter.com/SkyNews/status/469941318224195586/photo/1

For some reason Farage looks like a Shar Pei fighting dog.

College looks as though he is sitting on a sharpened apostrophe.