The Great Unknown: A Betting History Of The Great British By-Election
The Great Unknown: A Betting History Of The Great British By-Election. The modern era of political betting began in 1963 when Ladbrokes’ Ron Pollard opened up a book on the Conservative Party leadership contest. Shrewd punters could back the outsider Alec Douglas-Home at 16/1 over the hot 5/4 favourite Rab Butler…..
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Just imagine a young Mike Smithson, clutching his coppers (the coins, not the bill) as he steps up to the window, peering upward and piping, "Please sir, may I put a half crown on Sir Alec"? (Or whatever he - the laird, not Mike - was calling himself at that moment.)
The hardened bookie snorts in derision, "It'll be yer funeral, lad. Sure you don't want to invest in a half-pound of Turkish Delight instead?"
"No, Sir!"
And the rest, as they say, is history . . .
Haven't actually read it yet, but can't wait to do so, it's clearly chock full o' facts. AND nuts!
I noticed a few days back that Mr Broxton chose an image with a surfeit of Union Jacks for the post on Blairs 1997 victory, for those who claim that the flag stuff is new!
Seriously, who DID you bet on? Sir Gerald Nabarro?
Off the top of the head, it was a smoke filled room election, not democracy?
I assume the "they" referred to the LDs. Plus the original comment was about Chesham and Amersham, which suggests he was talking about the Conservatives defending.
Basically Con 31,000 vs LD 15,000 each time.
In between the LDs dipped to fourth in 2015, and then third in 2017, before recovering in 2019.
There can't be many seats like that.
Net approval
Sturgeon (SNP-G/EFA): +22
Sarwar (LAB-S&D): +12
Harvie (SGP-G/EFA): -4
Rennie (LDEM-RE): -5
Starmer (LAB-S&D): -10
Ross (CON-ECR): -30
Johnson (CON-ECR): -40
Fieldwork: 23-27 April 2021
Sample size: 1,001
➤ http://europeelects.eu/uk"
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1389320965541269512
Con 25,000 vs Lib 14,000.
The press, public and MPs considered the front-runners to be RAB Butler (Deputy PM), Quentin Hogg (formerly Lord Hailsham, he ditched his peerage also; until then he was Leader of the HoL) and Reginald Maulding (Chancellor of the Ex). There was no Conservative leadership election, instead the "customary processes" which were unofficial but highly significant "consultations" with Tory MPs and leading Lord and reports of the "results" to Macmillan, culminating with the PM giving his best (non-binding) advice to the Queen.
And that advice was to summon Sir Alec Douglas Home. Which she duly did.
Why not Butler, Hogg or Hailsham. Starting with the last, Hailsham was regarded as too young and flash and a bit risky, in the final analysis too risky. Hogg was regarded as a right-winger, and hearty about it which was considered (back then) worse; fact that Randolph Churchill passed out "Q" buttons at the Tory Conference while the powers-that-be were surveying parliamentary opinion was NOT a plus for him. As for Butler, Macmillan never thought him truly suitable, partly because he'd been a Chamberlainite (but then ADH had been Chamberlain's PPS) but mostly because he felt Butler lacked "bottom" whatever that is exactly.
BTW this was the last Tory leadership election decided by "customary processes". One of the things ADH did will he was C&UP Leader, was oversee creation of an actual election process for selecting his successor.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-05-03/the-european-union-is-all-process-no-substance
I think there's one typo though isn't there? That final paragraph on the SNP, you surely mean it marked a decade long period for the Conservatives in the wilderness? As it reads now it says it was the SNP who went into the wilderness. Or do you mean 'the beginning of the end of its decade long slump'?
"The SNP took the seat and declared it “not just a political earthquake, it is off the Richter scale”. It marked the beginning of its decade long slump into the political wilderness in Scotland."
Con 50%
Lab 33%
Perhaps the rest is slightly less erroneous? One can only hope!
https://www.survation.com/new-phone-poll-places-conservatives-on-course-for-hartlepool-win/
Boris has been campaigning there not so much because it's tight but because he wants to reinforce the image that he's a winner in Labour's red wall.
A comfortable tory win, sneaking into the thousands not the hundreds.
On the face of it, this looks like one of the most stunning potential poll results we’ve (actually published)"
No shit!
The data field is 23-29 April which is before some of the Wallpapergate and sleaze.
And the respondents to the phone poll total 517 out of the 1000 called. Not too bad but still a crumb of comfort for those reckoning on a Labour hold.
Off topic, I wonder if Shaun Murphy will be having nightmares about that final red on the cushion for the rest of his life? Easy to say with hindsight but it was a crazy shot to take on.
Re Shaun Murphy. Not crazy, brave!
And a good concession speech. I'd like to see him win again soon.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.180699589
I was going to say that national opinion polls really DO seem to have shown a sharp downturn for the tories and uplift for Labour. That may be froth responding to the relentlessly bad Boris headlines which lasted for a week. But I don't think it can be airily dismissed.
Fwiw I reckon the tories are going to have a very good day on Thursday.
I notice that Wikipedia says the Hull North by-election was won thanks to Labour announcing plans for the Humber Bridge. That's some bribe to win a by-election!
Mexico City metro overpass collapses, killing 15
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-56977129
Just a small query. You say, of a 1981 election, there was a Falklands effect. The war was the following year or were there pre-shocks which affected that election?
The sad thing is as I’ve said many times, Starmer was the best Labour had.
Neither were really in the frame for the leadership themselves in lead up to 1963. And not afterward neither as it turned out.
In retrospect, Sir Alec Douglas Hume was perfectly positioned, at least within the confines of the Tory Party as it was then composed and organized.
> He was a Chamberlainite who was nevertheless acceptable to the Churchillians, most especially Macmillan, in a way that Butler never really was.
> ADH was on the right but seen as a rightwinger, which Hailsham > Hogg certainly was, along with Powell.
> He was certainly not to the left of the party, unlike Butler (as in "Butskellism" = economic policy convergence with Labour Leader Hugh Gaitskell) or Macleod
> ADH was solid (indeed bit stolid) and trusted by Macmillan, and many other Tories in & out of government and parliament, in a way that Maulding and even Butler were not.
> Finally (at least for me) he had considerable foreign policy experience, and was in accord for the most part with Macmillan's views, esp. on America & the Russians, while the others had less experience and were harder (for Mac) where they ready stood and were likely to do on the international stage - perhaps THE prime consideration for the departing prime minister, along with winning the next general election.
One factor that was entered into the calculation, but not weighted sufficiently, was the 14th Earl factor. While Sir Alec did better in this regard, and overall, than many observers, esp. non-Tory ones, had expected, it seems clear that the burden of aristocracy in the age of democracy was too much. A Lord Boris might have pulled it off, and Sir Alec almost did - but it was a strategic mistake in 1963 to select a throwback to Lord Stanley or Lord Rosebery, even if the later was a Liberal (albeit a pro-imperialist, right-wing Lib).
The poll has Thelma Walker and Sam Lee on 6% each, I will eat the late Paddy Ashdown's hat if that happens.
Starmer was an arch Remainer and the fact is that Labour's Red Wall aren't. They are Brexiteers and that doesn't mean just about Brexit. It's a generational seismic shift that encompasses British patriotism and an anti-woke agenda. Starmer is a million miles away from these people. However much he tries to big up his south London tough background, which might be true, he's a metropolitan barrister.
He's not a northerner.
He's not a northerner.
He's not a northerner.
I don't honestly know how Labour come back, I really don't. They are caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand there's the mainly southern pro-European pro-Remain anti-Brexit internationalist metropolitans with their heartland in Labour London.
On the other there's their old core vote, the red wall, which has little or nothing in common with the aforementioned.
Brexit brought those two factions to a head. Starmer in the end tried to bridge the gap with a risible fudge.
What I would state is (I think) this. Whereas if Labour had a northerner leader who spoke the Red Wall language they would not lose their London core, the opposite is not true. Having a metropolitan Remainer as leader means they will continue to lose their Red Wall.
The worry for Labour must be that if this is the result in Red Wall seats then they’re going to have to do a lot better elsewhere.
What is truly sad is that Labour on Teesside are about to get smashed in the by-election, the mayoral and the PCC elections. And yet so many of my former colleagues - all sensible centre-left - will still fail to see that THEY are the problem.
For too many long-standing Labour activists in the region, they see their right to be in power as absolute. The Tories destroyed industry and the Tories will get the blame. Except that the economy has changed, people have changed and that just isn't true any more.
I'm not convinced Starmer was the best Labour could do.
Stuff like Barnsley East, one of the Hull seats and Miliband's seat would go lol
Torridge and West Devon: 5.3pp, 41.8pp, 36.5 pp
Newton Abbot: 1.1pp, 33.3pp, 32.2 pp
Montgomeryshire: 3.5pp, 35.5pp, 32 pp
West Worcestershire: 12.5pp, 42.6pp, 30.1 pp
North Dorset: 14.1pp, 43.3pp, 29.2 pp
North Herefordshire: 20.8pp, 48.7pp, 27.9 pp
Ludlow: 20pp, 47.1pp, 27.1 pp
Tewkesbury: 11.7pp, 36.7pp, 25 pp
Salisbury: 12.3pp, 36.7pp, 24.4 pp
Chelmsford: 9.4pp, 30.8pp, 21.5 pp
Meon Valley: 23.7pp, 43pp, 19.3 pp
Devizes: 28.1pp, 47.1pp, 19 pp
North Wiltshire: 15.4pp, 32.2pp, 16.8 pp
West Dorset: 6.8pp, 23.2pp, 16.3 pp
Christchurch: 31.2pp, 47.4pp, 16.2 pp
Mid Sussex: 13.3pp, 29pp, 15.7 pp
Saffron Walden: 28pp, 43.7pp, 15.7 pp
Harrogate and Knaresborough: 2pp, 17pp, 15 pp
Totnes: 10.3pp, 24.4pp, 14.1 pp
Stratford-on-Avon: 22.5pp, 36.3pp, 13.8 pp
New Forest West: 35.5pp, 48.5pp, 13 pp
Horsham: 20.5pp, 33.4pp, 12.9 pp
Kenilworth and Southam: 25.9pp, 38.7pp, 12.8 pp
Romsey and Southampton North: 8.5pp, 21.2pp, 12.7 pp
Tonbridge and Malling: 35.4pp, 47.3pp, 11.8 pp
Wealden: 31.3pp, 42.1pp, 10.9 pp
North West Hampshire: 34.9pp, 44.7pp, 9.8 pp
The Cotswolds: 23.5pp, 33pp, 9.6 pp
East Surrey: 30.9pp, 40.3pp, 9.4 pp
East Hampshire: 26.3pp, 34.6pp, 8.3 pp
South East Cambridgeshire: 10.3pp, 17.8pp, 7.5 pp
Chichester: 28pp, 35.1pp, 7.1 pp
Arundel and South Downs: 29.8pp, 36.7pp, 6.9 pp
Newbury: 20.9pp, 26.7pp, 5.8 pp
Sevenoaks: 35.4pp, 40.9pp, 5.4 pp
Woking: 12.9pp, 18.1pp, 5.2 pp
Maidenhead: 31.2pp, 33.4pp, 2.2 pp
Epsom and Ewell: 29.4pp, 30.1pp, 0.7 pp
Surrey Heath: 31.8pp, 31.3pp, -0.5 pp
North East Hampshire: 35.1pp, 34.1pp, -1 pp
Windsor: 38.4pp, 37.4pp, -1.1 pp
Chesham and Amersham: 31.9pp, 29.1pp, -2.7 pp
Winchester: 5.5pp, 1.7pp, -3.8 pp
Tunbridge Wells: 31pp, 26.8pp, -4.2 pp
Wantage: 24.1pp, 18.8pp, -5.2 pp
Henley: 31pp, 23.9pp, -7.1 pp
Mole Valley: 28.8pp, 21.1pp, -7.7 pp
Guildford: 14pp, 5.7pp, -8.3 pp
South Cambridgeshire: 13.3pp, 4.3pp, -8.9 pp
Wokingham: 24.7pp, 11.9pp, -12.8 pp
South West Surrey: 28.5pp, 14.6pp, -13.9 pp
Witney: 39.4pp, 24.8pp, -14.6 pp
Hitchin and Harpenden: 27.9pp, 11.7pp, -16.2 pp
Wimbledon: 24.1pp, 1.2pp, -22.9 pp
Esher and Walton: 34.1pp, 4.3pp, -29.7 pp
Lots of commuter belt seats in the middle of that lot.
Epsom and Ewell probably the most similar to Chesham and Amersham in terms of how the seat has changed.
Alas, it was not to be and the closest we ever got, in my estimation, was the Coalition government of Cameron and Clegg. That got me interested in politics again after a fairly extended period of disillusionment. The last decade has certainly been eventful. I rather hope, despite the lack of betting opportunities that would arise that the next decade is less so.
The Tories have the exact same issues as you described. Stick Jacob Rees-Mogg into the red wall and tell me they are the same. The difference is that the Tories are happy to celebrate their differences and Labour persecute them. I think part of this is their belief in universalism - one set of standards to apply to everyone.
How does this change? It doesn't. Unless they can find another Tony Blair whose personal charisma can make people set aside the dogma then frankly they are finished as a national party. Too many Labour activists are literally a gestalt entity with the party dogma - they can't change. So they need at least two parties if not three to replace them.
Starmer fails because people can see right through his insincerity. He put up with a whole load of hard left crap he disagreed with yet still claimed this was on his agenda when running for leader. He doesn't believe in half the dogma and the loons can see straight through him on one side and the normals can see straight through him from the other side.
https://twitter.com/Jamesdbaker1/status/1389312069124591616
What will do for the Tories is sleaze and being in power fir too long, but we haven't got there yet...
Labour need to speak to and for normals. People who speak like Angela Rayner who aren't interested in class or the bosses or benefits. The problem is that so many of them are incapable of doing so - the unions really don't help here.
I had you down as a liberal Tory like myself.
And Hartlepool and the English locals will mean a lot less than the English locals or the London mayor that happen on the same day - the former is a much wider poll, and the latter has some executive powers.
Notably there's one individual Tory on this site who acts on an AND basis, calling other Tories like myself "not real Tories". I call him a Blue Corbynite for that reason.
That attitude that dominates much of the left were only the pure of thought are tolerated is corrosive. It is the zealotry of religion not politics, were heretics are considered a greater evil than heathens.