politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Ashcroft’s promised CON-LD battleground polls could ei

Next week's ICM is going to be crucial.

Behind the Greens, low single digits, and the Lib Dems are going to turn into Frazer from Dad's Army

Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft · 12 secs
My goodness! The early results of my polling in the Tory/Lib Dem battlefield marginals do look like......

Such a c*** tease is the Lord..

TheScreamingEagles said:

Next week's ICM is going to be crucial.

Behind the Greens, low single digits, and the Lib Dems are going to turn into Frazer from Dad's Army

A mix of Frazer going 'We're doomed, we're doomed', and Jones going 'Don't Panic, don't Panic'.

For AndyJS
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/06/isis_take_control_of_1.php#

Its the closest I could find

Slackbladder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Next week's ICM is going to be crucial.

Behind the Greens, low single digits, and the Lib Dems are going to turn into Frazer from Dad's Army

A mix of Frazer going 'We're doomed, we're doomed', and Jones going 'Don't Panic, don't Panic'.

Lord Oakeshott as Captain Mainwaring to Private Pike/Clegg: You stupid boy.

For AndyJS
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/11/world/middleeast/isis-control-map.html

This is a better map.

FPT

GE2015 will be the LibDems' Singapore!

Interesting, I suspect that the Ashcroft poll will show a mixed picture in Con-LD seats.

Meanwhile whilst everyone is looking elsewhere it looks like things could be kicking off again in Ukraine

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27815441

On Iraq, the americans have refused aid to Iraq, so Iraq's last option is to beg Iran.
If ISIS captures Samara (they are besieging it right now) then Iran will probably give them all the military aid they like and even more.
There are reports that ISIS is close to Baghdad International Airport, so currently the americans are preparing for this:

pic.twitter.com/9i4zjsfrWN

Iraq is currently too disorganised to launch any counteroffensive, they couldn't get a quorum in their parliament to declare a state of emergency, so far they are trying to defend Baghdad and break the siege of Samara.

AndyJS said:

If the LDs were to win less than 10% at GE2015 it wouldn't matter about tactical voting or personal votes, they'd lose most of their MPs anyway. Those things only matter once you assume they get up to about 14-15%.

7-8% would be about one-third of their 2010 general election vote and would equate to about 2.3 million votes nationwide.

Tactical voting an personal votes would mean that the Lib Dems would probably hold roughly ten times as many seats as UKIP would with double the national vote share. That is they would make the conversion of votes into seats at least twenty times more efficient.

Thirty seats at 20,000 votes per seat is 600k votes, say another thirty seats with an average 10,000 votes per seat and they would be looking at an average vote of 2,500 in the remaining 570 seats. So the Lib Dems could still hope to hold about half their current seats on a national share of less than 10%.

Equally, if they drop down more equally to an average of 15,000 in the seats they currently hold then they could be left with less than ten seats on a national share of less than 10%.

The fewer votes the Lib Dems take nationally the more important the distribution of those votes locally becomes.

Pulpstar said:

Slackbladder said:

Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft · 12 secs
My goodness! The early results of my polling in the Tory/Lib Dem battlefield marginals do look like......

Such a c*** tease is the Lord..

It's either terrible news for the Tories or dreadful stuff for the Lib Dems.

Or the fact that Labour could probably win a couple of these seats if their supporters actually stuck with the party - I predict there will be a seat or two that goes the way the tacticals don't want it to through tactical voting.

Which seats he'll be doing I wonder...

I've taken a smidgen of 5/4 about the Conservatives in St Ives. Interesting the price is that long even though the relative fortunes for the parties have been so different.

Also will be instructive for the fortunes of Kevin Foster who I know personally in Torbay. His seat will be a key test of SW fortunes on the night.

The assumption in the betting markets seems to be that the Lib Dem vote will hold up disproportionately well in the Con-LD marginals and that it will collapse completely in LD-Lab marginals.

We'll get the answer to the first of these with the poll at any rate.

You have to go with terrible for the lib dems.

shadsy said:

Anyone want to add to my list of top betting shocks in politics?
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/the-top-five-political-betting-shocks/

I dunno if anyone has any examples of very big priced winners to become president or similar?

Not sure the Pope Francis example really counts; when there are so many runners, it's not too surprising that one of the long-odds ones comes in - the hard bit is predicting which one.

MikeK said:

FPT.
Famous last words 1.

"We're leaving behind a SOVEREIGN, STABLE and SELF-RELIANT #IRAQ" @BarackObama 2 and a half years ago pic.twitter.com/BJRDTemUcm

— Baghdad Invest (@baghdadinvest) June 12, 2014

Are there any calls yet for Barry to hand back his Nobel Peace prize?

Pulpstar said:

I've taken a smidgen of 5/4 about the Conservatives in St Ives. Interesting the price is that long even though the relative fortunes for the parties have been so different.

I think the Conservatives will probably take St Ives with a lower vote than they had when they came second in 2010. It's the sort of place where one expects UKIP will pile up a lot of votes in third place.

HurstLlama said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FPT

GE2015 will be the LibDems' Singapore!

You mean it will emerge as a prosperous, clean (if slightly anti-septic), strictly-run but coherent party?

That would require the LibDems to come up with a beneficent dictator. I'm scouring the list of LibDem MPs, but so far....

I am not convinced that College travels to St. Ives to pick up votes.

OblitusSumMe said:

Pulpstar said:

I've taken a smidgen of 5/4 about the Conservatives in St Ives. Interesting the price is that long even though the relative fortunes for the parties have been so different.

I think the Conservatives will probably take St Ives with a lower vote than they had when they came second in 2010. It's the sort of place where one expects UKIP will pile up a lot of votes in third place.

Richard_Nabavi said:

shadsy said:

Anyone want to add to my list of top betting shocks in politics?
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/the-top-five-political-betting-shocks/

I dunno if anyone has any examples of very big priced winners to become president or similar?

Not sure the Pope Francis example really counts; when there are so many runners, it's not too surprising that one of the long-odds ones comes in - the hard bit is predicting which one.

Utter lottery. Did Betfair do a market on it or was it all Paddy.

Lay the favourite is probably a decent strategy there.

Richard_Nabavi said:

shadsy said:

Anyone want to add to my list of top betting shocks in politics?
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/the-top-five-political-betting-shocks/

I dunno if anyone has any examples of very big priced winners to become president or similar?

There was the famous Morus tip here on Cathy Ashton to get the EU Foreign Affairs gig - from memory, it was something like 40/1. I saw the tip and thought, 'Nah, can't happen.. '

Don't forget Mr Llama's healthy profits on +Fulham and ++Canterbury

ToryJim said:

Interesting, I suspect that the Ashcroft poll will show a mixed picture in Con-LD seats.

Since CON have fallen 5% since last time and the LD have fallen by 16% on average, that will be about 20 CON gains from the LD, anything less and that might be trouble for the Tories since they really need those seats.

BobaFett said:

The Good Lord's tweet suggests Armageddon for the Liberals.

I wonder whether a dire Ashcroft poll will be enough to shake them out of their stupor?

No, its ICM or bust for them.

Gah I've found it. What a ghastly way to set out the markets, in a right hand pane.

Here I was thinking it might be listed in actual alphabetical order.

Tanks getting lost, crossing a border to see night life in Ukraine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27815441

Someone is playing very silly buggers.

MarqueeMark said:

I think the phrase his Lordship is grasping for is "blood-bath"....

I wonder if any there are any classics scholars on here? Perhaps one of them could find a suitable example from history to suggest the impending doom facing the LibDems...?

My own rather less historical analysis references a dock-side hooker.....

Perhaps the Battle of Changping where the state of Zhao was tricked by the state oh Qin and 400,000 Zhao troops were then buried alive in the ensuing catastrophe

ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων

After the vote went against them there was much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Biblical ancient Greek, as glossed by 'The King's English':

“Weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth” is the awful fate of those consigned to “outer darkness.”

Let’s consider the words more closely:

Weeping/Wailing: The Greek lexicons speak of “bitter crying” and “lamentation.” There is the deep sadness of mourning (e.g. Matthew 2:18) as well as self-recrimination – think of Peter’s weeping following his denials (Matthew 26:75). It is closely connected with the lament “Alas! Alas!” (Revelation 18:15-19). It is the cry of the hopeless (Revelation 5:4) and yet, through the triumph of Jesus, His people will be brought to the place where we “weep not!” There will be no such weeping in the new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 65:19). However the “outer darkness” is a place of continual weeping and wailing. And also gnashing of teeth…

Gnashing of teeth: This is consistently a description of anger in Scripture. The miserable comforters “gnash their teeth” at righteous Job. The wicked gnash their teeth at the righteous one of Psalm 35 (v15). They gnash their teeth at Stephen before stoning him (Acts 7:54). Outer darkness is a place of violent fury.

Put these two terms together and you get a grotesque portrait of humanity. Hell is self-pitying, self-righteous anger, stretching on into eternity. The damned cry bitter tears and grind their teeth in fury. Sullen self-pity and furious self-righteousness grow in the outer darkness.

MarqueeMark said:

I think the phrase his Lordship is grasping for is "blood-bath"....

I wonder if any there are any classics scholars on here? Perhaps one of them could find a suitable example from history to suggest the impending doom facing the LibDems...?

My own rather less historical analysis references a dock-side hooker.....

In Martin's honour..."Taxi for the lib dems!"

MarqueeMark said:

I think the phrase his Lordship is grasping for is "blood-bath"....

I wonder if any there are any classics scholars on here? Perhaps one of them could find a suitable example from history to suggest the impending doom facing the LibDems...?

My own rather less historical analysis references a dock-side hooker.....

Personally I suspect and fear that the Lib Dems may become a classic example of the phrase "Be careful what you wish for." They wanted a Coalition for decades and getting it is in serious danger of destroying them.

They don't deserve it. They have given the country 4 years so far of stable and necessary government allowing at least an initial recovery from the Labour car crash. But it is looking increasingly likely they are going to be hammered.

AveryLP said:

[snip]

Put these two terms together and you get a grotesque portrait of humanity. Hell is self-pitying, self-righteous anger, stretching on into eternity. The damned cry bitter tears and grind their teeth in fury. Sullen self-pity and furious self-righteousness grow in the outer darkness.

But you can't write a head-line using that - needs to be more pithy..!

MarqueeMark said:

I think the phrase his Lordship is grasping for is "blood-bath"....

I wonder if any there are any classics scholars on here? Perhaps one of them could find a suitable example from history to suggest the impending doom facing the LibDems...?

My own rather less historical analysis references a dock-side hooker.....

UKIP's problem in Cornwall is that there is a substantial middle-class, eco-green vote in most of the constituencies which means they find it easy to get up to 20% but difficult thereafter. Most likely result is they poll 20-30% in all the seats and don't win any of them.

MarqueeMark said:

I think the phrase his Lordship is grasping for is "blood-bath"....

I wonder if any there are any classics scholars on here? Perhaps one of them could find a suitable example from history to suggest the impending doom facing the LibDems...?

My own rather less historical analysis references a dock-side hooker.....

As PB's pre-eminent Classical History Scholar, the Lib Dems and Clegg right now must feel like Emperor Valerian, after the Battle of Edessa.

Lost, the battle, went to negotiate peace, was betrayed by the other side, captured and used as a human foot stool for the rest of his life.

But it could be like the Battle of Ipsus for the Lib Dems in 2015.

Well if it was Sri Lanka's morning it has been England's afternoon. Pretty even going into the final session but the mo seems to be with England at the moment. Excellent debut from Ali.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

I think the phrase his Lordship is grasping for is "blood-bath"....

I wonder if any there are any classics scholars on here? Perhaps one of them could find a suitable example from history to suggest the impending doom facing the LibDems...?

My own rather less historical analysis references a dock-side hooker.....

As PB's pre-eminent Classical Scholar, the Lib Dems and Clegg right now must feel like Emperor Valerian, after the Battle of Edessa.

Lost, the battle, went to negotiate peace, was betrayed by the other side, captured and used as a human foot stool for the rest of his life.

Then skinned alive and the skin stuffed and mounted. Nice.

O/T:

"I'm turning into a grumpy old woman - aged just 31
In a world where we don't switch off, we're getting more stressed out earlier than ever, says Rebecca Holman

But what started out as a response to stress and a busy life has made me a grumpy old woman at 31. I’ve become the cynic and the pessimist you have to talk around if you want to change the evening plans. The idea of ‘playing it by ear,’ ‘just seeing what happens’ or indeed going to a crowded bar unless I know I’m going to get a seat, is not an option. Adverts on TV make me cross because I feel like I’m being conned, RAG week students on the tube leave me sour-faced and muttering under my breath, and I’m sure you can imagine how I feel about restaurants with a no-reservation policy.

My friends think it’s a phase - I’ll chill out when my life chills out, and go back to my chilled-out old self, but I’m not so sure. I think this is just the way I am now. I’ve become just the sort of ‘grown up’ (don’t laugh) I always vowed I’d never become - inflexible and difficult, far more concerned about how everything affects me than how my behaviour affects everyone else around me. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/10864366/Im-turning-into-a-grumpy-old-woman-aged-just-31.html

Anorak said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

I think the phrase his Lordship is grasping for is "blood-bath"....

I wonder if any there are any classics scholars on here? Perhaps one of them could find a suitable example from history to suggest the impending doom facing the LibDems...?

My own rather less historical analysis references a dock-side hooker.....

As PB's pre-eminent Classical Scholar, the Lib Dems and Clegg right now must feel like Emperor Valerian, after the Battle of Edessa.

Lost, the battle, went to negotiate peace, was betrayed by the other side, captured and used as a human foot stool for the rest of his life.

Then skinned alive and the skin stuffed and mounted. Nice.

Reminds me of Unlucky Alf from the Fast Show.

Speedy said:

OblitusSumMe said:

AndyJS said:

If the LDs were to win less than 10% at GE2015 it wouldn't matter about tactical voting or personal votes, they'd lose most of their MPs anyway. Those things only matter once you assume they get up to about 14-15%.

7-8% would be about one-third of their 2010 general election vote and would equate to about 2.3 million votes nationwide.

Tactical voting an personal votes would mean that the Lib Dems would probably hold roughly ten times as many seats as UKIP would with double the national vote share. That is they would make the conversion of votes into seats at least twenty times more efficient.

Thirty seats at 20,000 votes per seat is 600k votes, say another thirty seats with an average 10,000 votes per seat and they would be looking at an average vote of 2,500 in the remaining 570 seats. So the Lib Dems could still hope to hold about half their current seats on a national share of less than 10%.

Equally, if they drop down more equally to an average of 15,000 in the seats they currently hold then they could be left with less than ten seats on a national share of less than 10%.

The fewer votes the Lib Dems take nationally the more important the distribution of those votes locally becomes.

On that theory the LD can keep 30 seats with just 2% of the vote nationally, in practice it doesn't work.
The LD currently get 1.8 million votes on 6%, for the 20k in 30 seats, 10k in 30 seats and 2,5k in 570 you need 2.925 million votes.

It totals to about 2.3 million votes, as I said. You've added an extra 600k in. 2.3 million votes would equate to about one-third of their vote in 2010.

My proposition does not extend to the Lib Dems holding 30 seats on 2% of the vote, which is a very different thing to holding 30 seats on 8%. The former is absurd, whereas the latter is possible if their vote is sufficiently concentrated.. Worth remembering the 1997 general election when the Lib Dems lost votes but more than doubled the number of seats held.

Speedy said:

DavidL said:

MarqueeMark said:

I think the phrase his Lordship is grasping for is "blood-bath"....

I wonder if any there are any classics scholars on here? Perhaps one of them could find a suitable example from history to suggest the impending doom facing the LibDems...?

My own rather less historical analysis references a dock-side hooker.....

Personally I suspect and fear that the Lib Dems may become a classic example of the phrase "Be careful what you wish for." They wanted a Coalition for decades and getting it is in serious danger of destroying them.

They don't deserve it. They have given the country 4 years so far of stable and necessary government allowing at least an initial recovery from the Labour car crash. But it is looking increasingly likely they are going to be hammered.

They went in for power's sake, everyone can see it that they prefer the ministerial limos than their policies, their voters or even their future existence.
It's what they say: "You can never tell what a person's character is until you give them power"

I think that is harsh. I still believe that far too few people recognise just how close we were to the precipice in 2010. Darling, in fairness did, but the Captain was full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.

Without a stable government we could have been facing the collapse of our banking system, our currency and our economy. What the Lib Dems did they did in the national interest even if the cars and the preening was an attraction too.

Pulpstar said:

If you think the Good Lord's poll indicates a bloodbath for the Lib Dems then the Conservatives are 9-4 in Torbay.

I've gone in for £25.

Torbay is, in simple percentage-majority terms, the 25th most vulnerable LibDem seat, so it wouldn't even necessarily take a bloodbath. They could easily lose it and still be on over 30 seats. So those are very respectable odds compared with Shadsy's LibDem line of 33.5.

I'm on!

Good afternoon, everyone.

EU may classify being fat as a disability:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27809242

I've also just backed Croatia to win tonight at 14/1

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

EU may classify being fat as a disability:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27809242

Mr Dancer that would be madder than a very mad thing

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've also just backed Croatia to win tonight at 14/1

I backed nil nil on half time.

Speedy said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Speedy said:

OblitusSumMe said:

7-8% would be about one-third of their 2010 general election vote and would equate to about 2.3 million votes nationwide.

Tactical voting an personal votes would mean that the Lib Dems would probably hold roughly ten times as many seats as UKIP would with double the national vote share. That is they would make the conversion of votes into seats at least twenty times more efficient.

Thirty seats at 20,000 votes per seat is 600k votes, say another thirty seats with an average 10,000 votes per seat and they would be looking at an average vote of 2,500 in the remaining 570 seats. So the Lib Dems could still hope to hold about half their current seats on a national share of less than 10%.

Equally, if they drop down more equally to an average of 15,000 in the seats they currently hold then they could be left with less than ten seats on a national share of less than 10%.

The fewer votes the Lib Dems take nationally the more important the distribution of those votes locally becomes.

On that theory the LD can keep 30 seats with just 2% of the vote nationally, in practice it doesn't work.
The LD currently get 1.8 million votes on 6%, for the 20k in 30 seats, 10k in 30 seats and 2,5k in 570 you need 2.925 million votes.

It totals to about 2.3 million votes, as I said. You've added an extra 600k in. 2.3 million votes would equate to about one-third of their vote in 2010.

My proposition does not extend to the Lib Dems holding 30 seats on 2% of the vote, which is a very different thing to holding 30 seats on 8%. The former is absurd, whereas the latter is possible if their vote is sufficiently concentrated.. Worth remembering the 1997 general election when the Lib Dems lost votes but more than doubled the number of seats held.

True I made an error on double counting those 30 seats, however that is still half a million votes more than with 6%, that's the point, they have fallen so low that even the Zulu strategy is suffering.
On 1997 LD lost only 1% but gained plenty of Tory seats on a 5.5% swing plus tactical voting.
This time its the LD that are losing more votes with a 5.5% swing to the Tories however tactical voting might still be there but what is the difference between the LD and CON these days?

I never mentioned the 6% figure. In my post I also pointed out that if their vote is just a bit more spread out they could end up with less than ten seats.

My point being that at that vote level - just below 10% - it is only local concentration of the Lib Dem vote, due to tactical voting and personal votes, that matters at all. It matters a lot more than when they are on ~20% of the vote.

rcs1000 said:

AndyJS said:

If the LDs were to win less than 10% at GE2015 it wouldn't matter about tactical voting or personal votes, they'd lose most of their MPs anyway. Those things only matter once you assume they get up to about 14-15%.

Yes: at 15-16%, and given the rise of UKIP, the LibDems keep the bulk (perhaps 40) of their seats.

At 8% or below, they'll be sharing a taxi. And it won't be a people carrier one, either.

I continue to think Charles Kennedy for next leader is the best way to play LibDemaggedon. Sub 8% means very, very few MPs (at 8%, it will be 3-to-4) , of which CK will definitely be one. Hard to see how he won't be leader under these circumstances. 50-1 is clear value.

Farron & Carmichael will be two of the others I think.

Made up the £25 to £50 on the back of Nabavi & TSE following me in, £50 on for my Dad too !

Speedy said:

BobaFett said:

The Good Lord's tweet suggests Armageddon for the Liberals.

I wonder whether a dire Ashcroft poll will be enough to shake them out of their stupor?

No, its ICM or bust for them.

Yeah, ICM did Ming in - When the October 2007 poll took Lib-Dem's down to 14%, that was curtains for Ming;

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2/icm

What the Lib's would give to polling 14% now of course... :^O

Mr. Jim, good job the EU has such a great track record on common sense and not piling up needless regulation.

AndyJS said:

Ali goes for 48.

Eurgh I just put up £50 @EVS to lay ENG and didnt get matched.. 20 odd for 5 on this pitch isnt good, Lanka look biig at 7/2

rcs1000 said:

AndyJS said:

If the LDs were to win less than 10% at GE2015 it wouldn't matter about tactical voting or personal votes, they'd lose most of their MPs anyway. Those things only matter once you assume they get up to about 14-15%.

Yes: at 15-16%, and given the rise of UKIP, the LibDems keep the bulk (perhaps 40) of their seats.

At 8% or below, they'll be sharing a taxi. And it won't be a people carrier one, either.

I continue to think Charles Kennedy for next leader is the best way to play LibDemaggedon. Sub 8% means very, very few MPs (at 8%, it will be 3-to-4) , of which CK will definitely be one. Hard to see how he won't be leader under these circumstances. 50-1 is clear value.

True, Charles Kennedy might be the only LD heavyweight left.
He will probably keep his seat since he was ousted 9 years ago for the ridiculous charge of binge drinking not for policy, he is a lefty and not in the coalition and helds the title of the most popular LD leader.

After the car crash of the coalition, he will probably take over.