politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And for the evening with 100 days to go – a Marf cartoon

The one interesting thing with the polls is that there is zero reaction from the outcome of the greek election compared with all the media attention to it, entirely as I expected.

AndyJS said:

HYUFD said:

ITV Wales/Cardiff Uni Wales poll CON 23%, LAB 37%, LDEM 6%, PC 10%, UKIP 16%, GRN 8% http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/yooqei4d9h/ITVWales_January15_w.pdf

Changes since 2010:

Lab +1%
Con -3%
UKIP +14%
LD -14%
PC +1%
Green +8%

Swing Con to Lab: 2%.

Not enough to win Carmarthen West, Vale of Glamorgan, Preseli Pembrokeshire.

It depends where that +14% of UKIP has come from.

Speedy said:

AndyJS said:

HYUFD said:

ITV Wales/Cardiff Uni Wales poll CON 23%, LAB 37%, LDEM 6%, PC 10%, UKIP 16%, GRN 8% http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/yooqei4d9h/ITVWales_January15_w.pdf

Changes since 2010:

Lab +1%
Con -3%
UKIP +14%
LD -14%
PC +1%
Green +8%

Swing Con to Lab: 2%.

Not enough to win Carmarthen West, Vale of Glamorgan, Preseli Pembrokeshire.

It depends where that +14% of UKIP has come from.

I was referring to the 2% swing from Con to Lab.

I think these numbers would equate to c. Con 275, Lab 280, LD 30, UKIP 5, SNP 35, Others 25. The Tories need to get to c.3% ahead of Labour to be clearly ahead on seats.

RodCrosby said:

JWisemann said:

So 7 leads out of 37 in January, well done the tories

Voters don't neatly change their opinions on the first of every calendar month...

You can't just choose a timeframe to prove your crackpot theories. What is it? Three days? A week? A month?

peter_from_putney said:

AndyJS said:

A 1% Con lead equates to a 3% swing which means just 38 Lab gains from Con on a uniform swing. Most of those gains could be wiped out by losses to the SNP.

Come on Andy, you have a reputation on here as a numbers man.
38 seats lost by the Tories to Labour equates to a double whammy movement of 76 seats and does NOT equate GE outcome-wise to Labour losing a similar number to the SNP.

Personally I think if uniform swing predicts 38 Lab gains from Con it'll be less than that in reality. Reason is I think Labour will overperform in metropolitian areas where there aren't many marginals, and therefore underperform elsewhere.

JohnO said:

Things will only really become interesting if and when the daily YouGov begins to show regular Tory leads of over 3% (and the monthly ones follow suit).

I believe they will but AudreyAnne is correct that these will have to start happening sometime next month.

The crisis will come when NPEXMP either stops reporting his lead (currently c7% according to him ) or reports it as zero.
At that moment Labour will be truly fecked.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

compouter2 said:

JWisemann said:

So 7 leads out of 37 in January, well done the tories

I am reading up on my egg shapes already. The falling always seems really hard for PB Hodges to take.

Would you care to frame a bet on there being as many Tory leads in Feb polls as in Jans?

It's a shorter month so that should make it an easy win for you...

Amazing at it seems, for someone who comes on here, however, I do not bet. I come here to marvel at the repeated PB Hodge tumbling.

Someone posted this earlier today.

"Back at the start of October the Tories had three consecutive YouGov leads - something they haven't achieved since. If we get such a pattern now then you could start to see movement in the markets".

Who was it? Ah, yes, it was OGH!

Two in a row now. Let's see what tomorrow brings .....

Grumpy lefties here tonight I see...

#slipslidingaway

JWisemann said:

RodCrosby said:

JWisemann said:

So 7 leads out of 37 in January, well done the tories

Voters don't neatly change their opinions on the first of every calendar month...

You can't just choose a timeframe to prove your crackpot theories. What is it? Three days? A week? A month?

Calm down tim

foxinsoxuk said:

peter_from_putney said:

I'm shocked to notice that William Hill have the LibDems at only 11/4 to win beween 11-20 seats at the GE. Come back Martin Day, all is forgiven. Come to think about it, there appear to virtually zero LibDem supporters remaining on PB.com, even OGH appears to have switched to the Red Team, while Mark Senior's ever more infrequent appearances consist entirely of him ranting on against the Tories.

I will be voting LD, but I am not in a winnable seat.

The national economy is still a bit rocky, but no longer on a precipice. A couple of years of unstable minority may be needed before the recognition of the coalition as a golden period of sane government. This looks like the time for that realisation. At that point the LDs will revive.

You have to hope that the Liberals then have sufficient seats to remain a credible coalition partner. I fear this may not be the case should Tim Farron become its leader.

SquareRoot said:

Speedy said:

The one interesting thing with the polls is that there is zero reaction from the outcome of the greek election compared with all the media attention to it, entirely as I expected.

That's because the EU extended terms to Greece for 6 months. No meltdown until July(if agreement not reached)

Someone has to pay the debt, since Greece hasn't got the money someone else has or it's default and the ECB, EFSF and other euro governments (including Britain I think) will lose all their money.

Interestingly the new greek government seems to have decided to go in a confrontational mode in foreign policy as well, it's very similar to the 1980's socialist government where it was publicly pro-soviet and pro-arab while getting a lot of western aid in exchange for not messing up western policy vs the USSR.
A similar deal might be on the cards this time in exchange for not sabotaging american policy vs Russia.
In exchange for either a debt haircut or the USA paying a significant portion of the tab lets say until the debt is 100% of GDP in exchange for Greece playing nice.

That would be my advice to the greek government: "You need cash to meet debt payments or get a debt haircut, the most valuable things you have is 5 vetoes on who enters the EU, NATO, Eurozone, EU trade sanctions and EU trade policy. Sell them to the highest bidder."

My info from Athens is similar, they might be open for a deal with either Russia or America for the veto, but the price tag is in the range of 20 billion euros for this year and 10 billion per year for another 10 years if there is no haircut.

peter_from_putney said:

foxinsoxuk said:

peter_from_putney said:

I'm shocked to notice that William Hill have the LibDems at only 11/4 to win beween 11-20 seats at the GE. Come back Martin Day, all is forgiven. Come to think about it, there appear to virtually zero LibDem supporters remaining on PB.com, even OGH appears to have switched to the Red Team, while Mark Senior's ever more infrequent appearances consist entirely of him ranting on against the Tories.

I will be voting LD, but I am not in a winnable seat.

The national economy is still a bit rocky, but no longer on a precipice. A couple of years of unstable minority may be needed before the recognition of the coalition as a golden period of sane government. This looks like the time for that realisation. At that point the LDs will revive.

You have to hope that the Liberals then have sufficient seats to remain a credible coalition partner. I fear this may not be the case should Tim Farron become its leader.

They are not particularly credible now. foxinsox's point is that I take it he is voting LD 'against' another party ie to hopefully stop that party from winning the seat.
I suspect there will be a lot of that going on.

foxinsoxuk said:

peter_from_putney said:

I'm shocked to notice that William Hill have the LibDems at only 11/4 to win beween 11-20 seats at the GE. Come back Martin Day, all is forgiven. Come to think about it, there appear to virtually zero LibDem supporters remaining on PB.com, even OGH appears to have switched to the Red Team, while Mark Senior's ever more infrequent appearances consist entirely of him ranting on against the Tories.

I will be voting LD, but I am not in a winnable seat.

The national economy is still a bit rocky, but no longer on a precipice. A couple of years of unstable minority may be needed before the recognition of the coalition as a golden period of sane government. This looks like the time for that realisation. At that point the LDs will revive.

Said Jim Callaghan in 1979 about Labour, probably.

Tissue_Price said:

peter_from_putney said:

foxinsoxuk said:

peter_from_putney said:

I'm shocked to notice that William Hill have the LibDems at only 11/4 to win beween 11-20 seats at the GE. Come back Martin Day, all is forgiven. Come to think about it, there appear to virtually zero LibDem supporters remaining on PB.com, even OGH appears to have switched to the Red Team, while Mark Senior's ever more infrequent appearances consist entirely of him ranting on against the Tories.

I will be voting LD, but I am not in a winnable seat.

The national economy is still a bit rocky, but no longer on a precipice. A couple of years of unstable minority may be needed before the recognition of the coalition as a golden period of sane government. This looks like the time for that realisation. At that point the LDs will revive.

You have to hope that the Liberals then have sufficient seats to remain a credible coalition partner. I fear this may not be the case should Tim Farron become its leader.

If the Tories finish on 315 and the LD's on 25 there has to be a real possibility of a split in the party.

I agree, the more so should Farron become leader, but at a rough estimate 2/3rds of the party would break left and perhaps 1/3rd right, in which case neither faction would be likely to prove crucial in terms of forming a coalition.

peter_from_putney said:

foxinsoxuk said:

peter_from_putney said:

I'm shocked to notice that William Hill have the LibDems at only 11/4 to win beween 11-20 seats at the GE. Come back Martin Day, all is forgiven. Come to think about it, there appear to virtually zero LibDem supporters remaining on PB.com, even OGH appears to have switched to the Red Team, while Mark Senior's ever more infrequent appearances consist entirely of him ranting on against the Tories.

I will be voting LD, but I am not in a winnable seat.

The national economy is still a bit rocky, but no longer on a precipice. A couple of years of unstable minority may be needed before the recognition of the coalition as a golden period of sane government. This looks like the time for that realisation. At that point the LDs will revive.

You have to hope that the Liberals then have sufficient seats to remain a credible coalition partner. I fear this may not be the case should Tim Farron become its leader.

There are other people that I would prefer to lead the party, but I would prefer the LDs to not be in coalition with anyone. Partly this is so people can see the consequences of not having a coalition, but also the party needs to regroup. There is also the credibility issue, losing half of the parties seats (as seems likely) makes a continuing place in government ridiculous.

I shall be voting LD for the simple reason that I support more of the LD parties policies than any other party.

Speedy said:

foxinsoxuk said:

peter_from_putney said:

I'm shocked to notice that William Hill have the LibDems at only 11/4 to win beween 11-20 seats at the GE. Come back Martin Day, all is forgiven. Come to think about it, there appear to virtually zero LibDem supporters remaining on PB.com, even OGH appears to have switched to the Red Team, while Mark Senior's ever more infrequent appearances consist entirely of him ranting on against the Tories.

I will be voting LD, but I am not in a winnable seat.

The national economy is still a bit rocky, but no longer on a precipice. A couple of years of unstable minority may be needed before the recognition of the coalition as a golden period of sane government. This looks like the time for that realisation. At that point the LDs will revive.

Said Jim Callaghan in 1979 about Labour, probably.

The LibLab pact of the Seventies was clearly not a success, the one of the twentyteens is a conspicuous one.

GIN1138 said:

Grumpy lefties here tonight I see...

#slipslidingaway

Grumpy? Moi?

I was a Labour candidate in Falklands year. Takes a lot to make me grumpy!

RodCrosby said:

Anyone know where I can find Labour seat-band odds?

I'm particularly interested in sub-260...

Here:

http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/British/Next-General-Election/Politics-N-1z141maZ1z141m1Z1z141ng/

And here:

http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/t/233/General-Election.html

Neil said:

peter_from_putney said:

AndyJS said:

A 1% Con lead equates to a 3% swing which means just 38 Lab gains from Con on a uniform swing. Most of those gains could be wiped out by losses to the SNP.

Come on Andy, you have a reputation on here as a numbers man.
38 seats lost by the Tories to Labour equates to a double whammy movement of 76 seats and does NOT equate GE outcome-wise to Labour losing a similar number to the SNP.

In terms of getting a majority it does.

If the picture of what the figures means can be so diametrically opposed its no wonder the bookies make money.
I had to do a quick example
Say (just as an illustrative eg)
Tories 300 Labour 260. Gap = +40 for tories
Tories on 300 - they lose 30 to Labour = 270
Labour on 260 - they gain 30 from tories = 290. Gap = -20 for tories
Labour now on 290, they lose 30 to SNP = labour on 260.
Gap = +10 for tories

How will the LD seats fall to make up the difference and for who is largest party. Its a pity the Speaker is not labour from an inner London seat.

NickPalmer said:

GIN1138 said:

Grumpy lefties here tonight I see...

#slipslidingaway

Grumpy? Moi?

I was a Labour candidate in Falklands year. Takes a lot to make me grumpy!

You wasn't ever tempted by the SDP then?

RodCrosby said:

antifrank said:

RodCrosby said:

Anyone know where I can find Labour seat-band odds?

I'm particularly interested in sub-260...

Here:

http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/British/Next-General-Election/Politics-N-1z141maZ1z141m1Z1z141ng/

And here:

http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/t/233/General-Election.html

Thanks, what about spread betting? What's the over/under on that at the mo?

Sporting Index's market is suspended at the moment, but earlier today you could sell Labour at c280.

MarqueeMark said:

100 days to go - and the LibDems are on 7%.

It's OK to panic now guys.

If the LDs had kept their powder dry and not burnt their bridges (!!) then there could still have been a coupon election. Of sorts. I can only think that the Green rise in significant part is due to many people wondering what the point of the LDs is. I do not see that you can attack the govt you are a part of - ie cabinet ministers like Cable - and expect to be taken seriously.

Nice cartoon, Marf!

100 days to save the NHS

Richard_Nabavi said:

Cyclefree said:

Will people necessarily think that voting for Ed will result in doom, though? I'm not entirely sure myself. He may be useless or he may surprise. The 2 economic policies we know about: cutting fuel bills and the mansion tax are generally popular. It's not just that Ed appears to be a bit of an unknown but that all the other members of the shadow cabinet are equally meh or invisible.

If anything Ed's weakness seems to me to be that (a) he appears not to have done the hard thinking about what sort of left of centre party Labour should or needs to be in the current world; and (b) no-one else in Labour seems to have thought about this either. So the biggest risk is that any Labour government will end up buffeted by events and, to coin a phrase, in office rather than in power.

That is basically what I'm saying. Ed Miliband, and Labour generally, have absolutely nothing whatsoever of any substance to say. Why vote Labour? They are not even vaguely attempting to give ny reasons based on what they could do better than the current lot. There is only one reason on the table, to get rid of the "evil Tories". That is it, there is no other offer at all, other than some childish treat-the-symptons soundbites. Yet the evil Tories are, beyond any doubt, doing a rather good job: just look at the international comparisons.

When push comes to shove, will voters abandon a very successful government, which is doing an excellent job on the economy as well as on lots of other areas, for a void?

I dunno, but that is the key to the election.

Fair points. I think most people would agree that Labour's opposition has consisted mainly of taking instant 'anti' positions, that is looking for a downside any downside in everything irrespective of causes and effects. There has been no attempt to link it to the actual problems and how any alternative would or could actually be better.
The oil price is high? Clearly its a difficulty for people. Labours answer is to make companies freeze prices. The fact that this would make companies lose money and cut investment is ignored. Its an easy gimmicky fix costing other people money and the consequences of that can be ignored. The green levies introduced by Labour can also be ignored. The more you do stuff like this the more it gets noticed.

RodCrosby said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MikeL said:

YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories still ahead by one: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 7%, UKIP 14%, GRN 7%

Crossover sustained?

Crossover foretold.

I'm looking forward to your final prediction for the election, whenever it comes.

RodCrosby said:

AndyJS said:

What we need is some constituency polling in safe Labour seats in Scotland, especially in the Glasgow area. It's psychologically difficult to believe they're really going to lose those types of seats even though the national Scottish polls must mean precisely that.

The next Ashcroft, I believe...

There really isn't a precedent for such an election result. Except Ireland 1918...

The possibility of most seats in Scotland changing hands reminds me of the 2011 Canadian election in Quebec although there of course the huge swing was in the other direction: from the Quebec nationalists to the main Canadian social democrat party. Seats that had seemed rock solid for BQ were swept away and candidates who never expected to be elected found themselves in Parliament, most notably this woman who hadn't campaigned much and was I think on holiday in Vegas when the result was announced:

http://ruthellenbrosseau.ndp.ca/
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2011/05/20110511-165331.html

AndyJS/Rod No a more apt comparison would be the 1993 Canadian general election when the Quebec nationalists went from 10 to 54 seats and 49% with the Liberals on 19 and 33% and the Progressive Tories on 13.5% and 1 seat. That was the election which saw the real emergence of the nationalists at a Federal level, not a subsequent swing back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

HYUFD said:

AndyJS/Rod No a more apt comparison would be the 1993 Canadian general election when the Quebec nationalists went from 10 to 54 seats and 49% with the Liberals on 19 and 33% and the Progressive Tories on 13.5% and 1 seat. That was the election which saw the real emergence of the nationalists at a Federal level, not a subsequent swing back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

Good point, I'd forgotten about 1993.

AndyJS said:

What we need is some constituency polling in safe Labour seats in Scotland, especially in the Glasgow area. It's psychologically difficult to believe they're really going to lose those types of seats even though the national Scottish polls must mean precisely that.

I'm more interested in Ld/Con seats like Berwick and Aberdeenshire West. Want to know where the LD vote has gone.