Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As most of the results are now in, the papers begin to give
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As most of the results are now in, the papers begin to give their take
Local results so far pic.twitter.com/HTCpa3cThj
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.
What a joke when the so called experts are using constituencies as an excuse for the national equivalent vote figures.
Just for comparison their forecast was CON -220, LAB +490, LD -350 (no figures for UKIP but around 100 gains was generally expected) and vote share LAB 33, CON 30 UKIP 16 and LD 14.
#libdems4change
http://www.libdems4change.org/
Utterly useless.
It shows a certain maturity that UKIP are not willing to put up unsuitable candidates to boost their poll share.
Meanwhile in London Borough of Havering the councillors who defected to UKIP seem to have all kept their seats (7 UKIP elected) and Tories appear to have lost control to a coalition of residents associations and UKIP with residents making numerous gains at tory expense and Labour reduced to one seat. Not all bad news for UKIP in London.
I suspect that Labours successes elsewhere in London are not unlinked to the insane house and rental prices in London which is an increasingly large issue that could have motivated people who are shut out of being able to buy a house and forced to hand over most of their wages to buy to let spivs for the forseeable future to vote labour, which would have the effect of squeezing UKIP.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGZMVENacEVqMUI0bWZaQk13c041S3c&usp=sheets_web#gid=0
But if they were worth their salt they'd be able to factor that in. It would seem that none of them have, at least not properly.
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.
Belike
Childs hill was narrow LD win over tories in 2010 with Labour a respectable third. Labour need to win at least two seats in the ward
https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/electionresults/2014/local
Wards:
https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/electionresults/2014/local/aldborough
and so on. (make sure to click on 'Candidates' for votes cast)
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.
Popular vote:
UKIP 8,873 (40.94%)
Lab 6,308 (29.11%)
Con 5,858 (27.03%)
Green 634 (2.93%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
UKIP +40.94%
Lab -12.48%
Con - 22.65%
Green +2.93%
LD -6.70%
Ind -2.04%
UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.
"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"
There are a few points of interest in this:
They went from 6 to 14 seats, and with the SNP broke the two party duopoly at least for the rest of the 70's; but took another 25 years before coalition. It was not a vintage period for governments as I recall!
Most of the increase came from standing in 334 seats in 1970 and 517 in 1974. Prior to 1970 Liberal inclined voters did not have the option of voting Liberal in many seats.
There is a parallel with UKIP today, in that by standing in many other council seats Ukip gave voters the option of a non-racist alternative party to the main 3.
The Liberals went from 6 to 14 seats, and with the SNP broke the two party duopoly at least for the rest of the 70's; but took another 25 years before coalition. It was not a vintage period for governments as I recall!
We are in for a bumpy ride methinks, and probably some non-vintage governments.
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.
You can't extrapolate from London to outside London.
You can't extrapolate from outside London to London.
The models are broken.
* I don't know for a fact they are all lefties, but I do know for a fact that some of them are, and strongly so. For the others we have to estimate, but they are academics, so we can model their political positioning fairly easily!
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...
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).
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.
Maybe the voting systems reform for parliament has stalled but there's surely a case for change in local government elections.
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.
Night all.
My view of these locals is that it's a bit "meh" for the two big parties, but no worse than that. All to play for at the GE and it changes little. The Tories have a London problem, Labour have a WWC problem. Even Steven.
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.
It's not simple or straightforward, but as it stands the adjustments from actual votes to notional national votes is suggesting that last year was very difficult territory for UKIP and this year was much better. I don't believe anyone would express that view, but it's the point coming out of this projection.
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.
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.
Tower Hamlets have not started counting council seats. At this rate they will barely finish in time for Euro count
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....
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.
Shortage of abacuses?
".... GE2015 is tricky to predict with the UKIP surge. "
Fantastic betting opportunities! :-)
Don't get me wrong, though - I still think they will clean up big-time in the Euros.
UKIP 12,632 (35.52%)
Lab 9,168 (25.78%)
Con 8,736 (24.57%)
LD 2,767 (7.78%)
Ind 1,133 (3.18%)
Green 631 1.77%
TUSC 492 (1.38%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
UKIP +26.45%
Lab -2.33%
Con -7.60%
LD -18.82%
Ind +2.74%
Green +1.77%
TUSC +1.38%
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.
New boundaries but old council was Con 20 Lab 16 LD 15
Yes. That's a different way of putting it, but I wouldn't disagree.
The rotter.
Was only ever a 2 horse race, he was 5-4 -> 7-4.
@Neil pointed it out, was a stonking tip.
Not surprising — you can't really expect to do well in Rotherham and the prosperous home counties at the same time.
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.