Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Survation finds that YES could have an 8% lead if Scottish
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Survation finds that YES could have an 8% lead if Scottish voters thought Dave would win GE15
This is one of the closest margins yet in any poll and is very much against the run of other recent polling. It will certainly give the YES campaign a boost but so far it has not seen any movement in the betting.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I must admit I'm finding it difficult to make a comment on any of this - except perhaps to say that we can forgive Eck for his moment of exuberance even if it was very very silly in the eyes of many.
Someone mentioned the programme about David Beckham going to Brazil and the Guardian mentioning his mispronunciation of "fillet". The review which confused me was that of the Metro, which said
What’s even more surprising is just how Essex their voices have remained despite their stint in LA and their decades rubbing shoulders with the upper classes. Brooklyn, however, has an American twang to his voice that will take you utterly by surprise.
It was clear from the programme that Brooklyn does NOT have (even a slight trace of) an American accent; furthermore, it would NOT be surprising if he did.
http://metro.co.uk/2014/06/09/why-david-beckhams-into-the-unknown-documentary-is-the-best-thing-youll-see-this-year-4755500/
You can't make a Western where everyone wears black hats...
Does Matthew Shaddick (Shadsy) of Ladbrokes know something which Martin Baxter of Electoral Calculus doesn't or vice versa?
Those nice people at the Magic Sign are offering odds of 11/8, equivalent to a 42.1% probability, against the SNP winning the Gordon constituency in May 2015, whereas Baxter reckons the SNP has a 66.4% chance, equivalent to approximately 1/2 expressed in fractional betting odds terms.
They might hang around for a few years, but post-independence the SNP will be fundamentally crippled by their lack of focus and would soon irrevocably split.
A counter-argument is that FF and FG still exist, but the process of Irish independence was very different. And bugger all good the FF/FG dominance did Ireland in the first decades of independence. In fact, still doing their country bugger all use nearly a century later.
Look at our neighbour on the other side: Norway's politics post-independence (1905). After their referendum Yes vote they went on to develop normal left/right politics. And both Ireland and Norway are wealthier than their "parent" states (the UK and Sweden respectively).
Scotland will no doubt continue to have her distinctive (some might say quirky) political culture, but all countries do.
Don't knows and refusers excluded
Yes 47%
No 53%
That's the David Coburn effect for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJIjgCCcD5c
He would probably have won that and got effective independence without all the problems. Also if it worked well it would then be much easier to win "dominion" status (ie independence) on the same basis as Australia and Canada in a few years, if it was wanted.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a bit of a renaissance for the tories in 2015, particularly if the nats don't accept defeat gracefully.
Angus
SNP (1/10), Conservatives (10), Labour (16)
Argyll and Bute
SNP (7/4), Labour (2), Liberal Democrats (5/2), Conservatives (7)
Banff and Buchan
SNP (1/10), Conservatives (8), Labour (20)
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Liberal Democrats (4/6), Conservatives (11/10), SNP (66)
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Liberal Democrats (2/5), Labour (3), SNP (6)
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
Conservatives (2/5), Labour (9/4), SNP (16)
Dundee East
SNP (2/5), Labour (11/4)
Dundee West
Labour (1/5), SNP (7/2)
East Dunbartonshire
Labour (8/15), Liberal Democrats (6/4), SNP (50)
Edinburgh North and Leith
Labour (1/16), Liberal Democrats (12), SNP (40)
Edinburgh South
Labour (1/25), Liberal Democrats (25), SNP (33)
Edinburgh West
Labour (4/5), Liberal Democrats (5/4), Conservatives (16), SNP (16)
Gordon
Liberal Democrats (11/8), SNP (11/8), Labour (7/2), Conservatives (20)
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey
Liberal Democrats (11/10), SNP (13/8), Labour (7/2), Conservatives (66)
Moray
SNP (1/10), Conservatives (8), Labour (20)
Na h-Eileanan an Iar
SNP (1/5), Labour (8), Liberal Democrats (90)
North East Fife
Liberal Democrats (2/7), SNP (5), Conservatives (10), Labour (10)
Orkney and Shetland
Liberal Democrats (1/100), SNP (25)
Perth and North Perthshire
SNP (1/10), Conservatives (8), Labour (16)
Ross, Skye and Lochaber
Liberal Democrats (1/33), SNP (10), Labour (33)
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
Liberal Democrats (8/11), Conservatives (6/4), SNP (8), Labour (33)
I'm calling you out for prejudiced bullsh1t
If the SNP had spent the last 80 years campaigning to be a crown dependency, then that would have been in the 2011 manifesto and thus on the referendum ballot paper. But we didn't.
Conversely, if we had set our hearts on crown dependency status, we would never have become the largest party in Scottish politics. We probably would not even have lasted 80 years.
https://m.ladbrokes.com/#!event_details?id=216773182
If not, I will link later from the PC.
Electoral Calculus gives the SNP a 54.9% chance of winning, equivalent to betting odds of just over 4/5, whereas Ladbrokes are offering odds of 7/4 against the SNP, equivalent to a winning probability of 36.4%.
Using the same means of comparison, another glaring disparity, this time South of the Border in a Labour vs LibDem contest is Bermondsey & Old Southwark:
Electoral Calculus gives Labour a 59.5% chance of wrestling the seat from Simon Hughes, equivalent to betting odds of approximately 4/6, compared with Ladbrokes' price against Labour of 2/1, equivalent to a winning probability of 33.3% .
But in any case look at the results.
Even if Mrs Thatcher were the spiritual godmother of Alex Salmond, she wiped out her party. The number of Conservative MPs in Scottish seats: Over the same period, voting share halved. If the United Kingdom does break up, this is why.
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/UK-General-Election/Next-General-Election-Constituency-Betting/Politics-N-1z140vgZ1z140v7Z1z141ne/
And specifically:
Falkirk: Labour 2/5, SNP 7/4, 100/1 bar
Ochil & South Perthshire: Labour 2/5, SNP 7/4, Con 50/1, 100/1 bar
Kilmarnock & Loudoun: Labour 1/12, SNP 6/1, 100/1 bar
Ayrshire North & Arran: Labour 1/5, SNP 3/1, 100/1 bar
Aberdeen South: Labour 1/20, SNP 16/1, Con 25/1, Lib Dem 33/1, UKIP 100/1
So far as the second question is concerned I said yesterday and on many previous occasions that the only risk factor I still see for No Thanks is a consistent tory lead in the opinion polls and this backs this up.
The legends and pure fantasy that SLAB managed to create around the tories in general and Thatcher in particular has been a very effective electoral weapon for them but there is a price to be paid for everything. Labour supporters are the key swing group and they have been indoctrinated with an unreasoning hatred of tories that is hard to overstate.
Will SLAB be able to deliver its supporters if the tories had, say, a 5% lead by September? That is the risk and why I have consistently said this is not all over.
" an unreasoning hatred of tories that is hard"
It's not unreasoned, hard yes.
"By September 18th, Tory leads should be commonplace..."
Noted.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-latest-election-round-what-have-we_11.html
My observation is not bitterness but a concern that this long term policy still threatens the outcome of the independence referendum. As I have said before that decision matters far more to me than the outcome of the next election which is an ephemeral thing by comparison.
Incidentally, nothing lasts for ever and it is Labour's monomania about the tories that allowed the SNP to blindside them and win a majority in the Scottish Parliament. SLAB have yet to find a means of combatting the Nats other than trying to hold the anti-tory line and it has its limitations in elections where the tories are not really in play.
The only issue I have is with her saying that now is the time to do this. Of course it is but we have known for 30 years that this should be done - since Ray Honeyford, since the Rushdie fatwa. There are none so blind, alas, as those that don't want to see.
Can Simon Hughes survive this shockingly low national level of support for the LibDems? ....... Personally I doubt it.
Is it time to start backing Ladbrokes' 21-30 LibDem GE Seats band at 7/2? Possibly.
A NO will be good for the Tories in that they will put Devomax in their manifesto. Scots who want more control over Scotland to come from Holyrood (a MUCH larger proportion that want full independence) should vote Tory (or SNP). A post-NO Scotland is going to be more fertile ground for Dave than has been the case for ages.
The only clue for this very low score is the split of the LD2010 VI.
The split is:
Cons: 18% (usually around 12-14 for June)
LAB: 32
LD: 24 (equals 2014 low)
UKIP: 13
Green:10
This YouGov poll had very good support from the 18-24 age group who are the ones who mainly support Green.
Also Midland/Wales (usual caveats) is Cons: 38/Labour34.
I've said before - and will say again now - that the great reason why we are where we are in the runp to indyref is not down to the Scottish bits of the Labour Party, but the way in which the Tories allowed themselves to lose Scotland from the 1950s onwards.
How far Labour were the cause, and how far the beneficiaries expanding into the vacuum, is nother matter and I've been reading your discussion with interest.
Result - Aberdeen South & North Kincardine - May 2011 - SNP gain from Liberal Democrats on a swing of 15.8 points
SNP 11,947
Lab 5,624
LD 4,944
Con 4,058
Ind 1,816
NF 214
Serious question please - how can a second question taint the first if the first has already been asked and answered?
Is there any polling evidence to suggest replacing Clegg with Cable would improve the LD's lot prior to GE2015? - If not, then Clegg is safe, er until further notice.
Out of 2157 respondents
Neunundneunzig LDs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQYQTFudrqc
How could an, as yet, unasked question "taint" the answers to the first question? Respondents do not get to see the entire questionnaire before responding: they see/get asked each question one at a time, so would have no idea what the next question might be when responding to the main VI question.
"I wonder how many of the middle class white Guardian reading BBC loving intellectuals who prattle on about how wonderful and encriched our country now is would actually send their own kids to one of these Muslim hell hole schools?
I think we know the answer to that."
"It's a simple practical issue.
A society will die if it tolerates a large influx of citizens who wish to live separately and by a completely different code.
The end result is the same, whether that influx is violent or peaceful, or a mix.
LibLabCon will do nothing abut this. Nor will their elite media chums. Both sets live far away from the third world hell holes they have deliberately encouraged in England's inner cities."
What outsiders rarely grasp about SLAB is that it is a machine. A political machine. Nothing more. Nothing less. At certain points in modern history it has been terrifyingly effective at winning elections, which is really its sole cohesive function. And how it won elections never bothered it in the slightest, hence the ruthless use of the Tory Demonisation tool by John Smith, Robin Cook, Gordon Brown, Donald Dewar & Co. That demonising the Tories might risk the Union in the long term was irrelevant for those men: what mattered was winning MPs in 83, 87, 92, 97 etc etc.
The key, tragic mistake made by the Tories was made an awful long time ago. 1965 to be precise, when the once-proud Unionist Party simply gave up and handed control, lock stock and barrel to the English Conservative Party. Only Murdo Fraser MSP seems to understand their own suicidal path, and he has very effectively been sidelined by Cameron.
In Iraq the Islamic militants march on - it seems the coercive apparatus has no will to resist (I suspect the rank-and-file are choosing their moment to switch sides and the top brass are planning their return to exile). When the militants have won their civil war (for that surely is what it is) will Obama ask Cameron to join him in another invasion and if so will Clegg use it as the excuse to leave coalition?
Let us be clear. It's not that most Muslims think that the militants are wrong in principle, but that their timing is awry. Islam, the average Muslim in the bazaar* thinks, is not yet strong enough to attack and destroy Western civilization. The Iraqi militants may lead to a rethink, of course, if they can take Baghdad. I am reminded of Franco's comment about the relative location of his columns and of Madrid...
*And likewise his cousin in London or Birmingham.
This is just depressing. I can respect those who are unionist or separatist, but to make the decision based on one election result is bloody stupid.
Also, photo-bombing is acceptable behaviour if you're a marmoset. If you're a first minister, it just makes you look like an arse.
If the LDs go sub-15 MPs then Kennedy might look like the only qualified candidate to be next leader.
Shadsy clearly recognises this, as he prices Kennedy shorter, at 33/1.
But I think you perhaps forget that a Tory government would be seen, fairly or unfairly, as likely to be highly influenced by UKIP. UKIP are very keen to reverse the devolution settlement of the 1990s. And the Scottish Pmt is very popular.
Er, what do marmosets have to do with photo-bombing?
It started a fortnight ago with the Tories outperforming expectations in the Euro and Local elections.
It continued last week with the easy Tory hold in Newark.
This week the English media has gone into overdrive promoting a 2nd rate football team which few expect to get beyond the group stage and almost none beyond the quarter finals.
We now have many in the media and political commentariat expecting the Tories to get back in next year.
Over the next fortnight we have the hype surrounding Bannockburn 2014
Next month we have the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, today they announce the largest Scottish team ever, 100 more athletes than in Manchester
Then we have the Ryder Cup
By August/September is it not likely that the re-election of a Westminster Tory government will be the main political story..........
just in time for Eck to say, vote YES on 18th September and avoid 5 more years of Tory rule from London.
Last week I thought that NO might just win but now I am tipping back into expecting a narrow YES. Worryingly for the future of Scotland it is getting really nasty as evidenced by the spat over Eck's spad and his disgraceful slur on the Labour wifie.
Shadsy cuts his Yes price from 7/2 to 3/1
Betfair still longer than 4/1
I have therefore taken the maximum available on Betfair (a meagre £2). If anyone wants to match me, I've left £18 or so hanging...
http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews/2014/6/15945.html
"Q: Your plans to base your team in the US have raised a lot of eyebrows, especially after Kenny Anderson and Peter Windsor’s ill-fated project of a few years back. Can you make that work?
GH: I think in this age of communication so much can be done on the Internet. Our base will always be Kannapolis, North Carolina. We plan to run a small shop in Europe where the cars come in and are refurbished and worked on, but the main facilities for building and design will be Kannapolis."
Just not smart. There's a reason why just about every team except Ferrari and Sauber are based in a small corner of England. Engineers can change teams without needing to move house or move their children to new schools.
He's also indicated he wants largely American personnel. Reminds me a bit of when Todt and Brawn left Ferrari. It turns out hiring people based on ability rather than birthplace works well.
Haas is also after a Ferrari engine. I have no idea why. It's perhaps the worst one.
He reckons Danica Patrick would be his dream driver. Wouldn't be a bad choice, actually, as it would certainly get media and sponsorship attention. Maybe Simona de Silvestro[sp] will be racing for Sauber by then.
My advice to prospective No backers is: wait. You'll get much more pleasant prices in the near future.
Bannockburn is really a Unionist shibboleth rather than a SNP one. I recall the incessant complaints from the Unionists about having the indyref in the same year as the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn. No doubt they would have complained if 2013 had been chosen, being the 400th of Flodden Field. And 2012 would have been too soon anyway. Ideally they would have preferred no referendum ...
No doubt to avoid being criticised for commemorating something so tactless as a Southron defeat, the Scottish Gmt has effectively delegated commemorations to the National Trust for Scotland, that well-known SNP front [I speak ironically]. Though that didn't stop the MoD and the local Labour-Tory council suddenly deciding to hold Armed Forces Day for the UK a few miles down the road, with predictable results (e.g. low flying jets and reenactors don't mix well).
However, the constitutional consequences of Bannockburn were indeed important and it will be interesting to see how much those are discussed in the media.
But they were successful because the Tories caused themselves to be immensely unpopular. Such a message would not have worked if people had not been willing to hear it.
1. The question "If you were certain David Cameron..." appears to only be calculated for "all respondents", and so does not include certainty to vote adjustments that are applied to the main referendum question. Therefore the Y-N-D of 44-38-18 should really be compared to the figures calculated on the same basis, which are sadly not given.
2. The male/female splits are emerging as a key factor in this referendum. For the standard question [with likelihood to vote weightings applied in full] men split 44-42-14 and women split 33-47-20. The figures for the second question [note all respondents], with changes on the main question are:
Men: 47% (+3) - 38% (-4) - 15% (+1)
Women: 42% (+9) - 37% (-10) - 22% (+2)
Conclusion: Women in Scotland seem more open to changing their voting intention for the referendum, and so their decisions will ultimately decide the result. Both campaigns need to understand why women are less keen on Independence than men and what messages will be most effective in convincing them one way or another.
It's also worth pointing out that most of the contributors to this blog are men, and so there is a real risk that people will miss the key issues that will decide the referendum and lose money on their bets. You have been warned!
Indeed. But military strength is increasingly technical and expensive. The islamic militants espouse a culture utterly antithetical to material advancement and will always be technologically backwards. They are takers not makers. Losers. Medieval backwards losers. Sure they can try to push terrorist acts - but that isn't going to destroy our civilisation, just fire us up. We choose to be 'weak' because our culture is relatively tolerant and kind. It may not stay that way if they start succeeding.
And at some point the technical gap may become such that we can just 'switch them off' from a desk in Washington.
The media are not over promoting England at all. The hype has been conspicuous in its absence this year.
You are conflating your own prejudices with actuality.
The LD 6% isn't significant in itself - just a MOE away from the usual 7-9. But the fact that we're used to thinking of 7-9 as usual IS significant. The party does appear to be marching over a cliff without hesitation or deviation.
This is nonsense. I don't think I have seen a single report in any part of the English media that claims anything other than England are in Brazil as an Also Ran.
But the Tories are an English party. We all know that.
Point of information: Ladbrokes have 4/7 that England will qualify from group D, and their quarter final prices are not all that long (eg. just 9/5 for England to reach the QF at Unibet), so clearly an awful lot of people disagree with you when you that "few expect to get beyond the group stage".
The other thing which hurt us particularly hard were unfavourable boundary changes. 3 on the trot to be precise. The 1970s changes wiped out our Glasgow Cathcart seat in 1979 by adding strong Labour wards instead of leafy Tory ones. Almost exactly the same thing happened on the north side of the river in the 1980s review which is why Hillhead went from being an SDP v Tory marginal to a safe Labour seat taken by George Galloway. We saw unfavourable boundary changes in Renfrewshire, Ayrshire, the South of Scotland, Tayside and Angus, Edinburgh and the Highlands. I was heavily involved in the boundary reviews in the 1980s. The Tory v LibDem marginal of Ross and Cromarty was completely transformed by taking 10,000 voters on Skye and sticking it in. Easter Ross which had been the bedrock of the Tory vote (Jamie Stone later LibDem MSP was at the time Tory ward chairman) was hived off to Caithness and Sutherland.
I happen to think that if Scotland votes YES, we will see the Scottish Tory recover many of our traditional seats because the "English 5th columnist" tag will simply no longer resonate. However assuming there is a NO vote, I do think we could advance at GE2015, largely at the expense of the LibDems.
The secondary question is a bit irrelevant and lacks context if you don't ask the question on how people might vote in the Indyref if Ed Miliband was going to be PM/Labour going to win in 2015.
Remember Panelbase asked those questions last August.
How likely are you to vote for Independence if there is an x govt at Westminster post 2015?
50% said they were likely to vote yes if there was a Tory led govt in 2015
47% said they were likely to vote yes if there was a Lab led govt in 2015
It says a lot about the Scottish grievance mentality that many need to make up grievances.
So each question would appear on one screen, when you've completed one question, you press enter, and it takes you to the next question, and IIRC there's no option to go back.
I fail to see what the bloody fuss was about re: Salmond and the saltire.
Scottish FM celebrates Scottish player who was born in Scotland and is a proud Scot winning by waving a Scottish flag.
It's not the effing Olympics where you are only allowed to wave the flags Seb Coe approves of, thank god. In most major sports he'd be playing officially for Scotland anyway, and, according to Google Sports, he does in tennis too...
Personally, I think the Libs will - as they did in 2010, 2005, 2001 and 1997 - get around the same share at the General that they have done in the Locals.
This would put them on about 12-14% at the General Election (I would suspect the lower end) - and I reckon around 25-35 seats.
However, if you believe LibDemaggedon (i.e. 6-7% share at the GE) then maybe the cheapest way is to bet on Charles Kennedy to be leader.
If the LibDems lose 75% of their vote, then Tim Farron will not be in the HoC; nor will Vince Cable, Ed Davey, Danny Alexander, Jo Swinson, Jeremy Browne or Norman Lamb. In fact, there will be very few seats (certainly less than half a dozen) that they will keep. Charles Kennedy is one of the few people who would remain an MP. And he is still an ambitious man; he is (I believe) now sober; and he led the LibDems to notable successes in the past.
I think 50-1 and up is a good hedge for the bets that I laid isam :-)