politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The official campaign Day 1: The line-up for Thursday night

Fascinating.

Then again, Dave a sell I reckon

Can I make a bet on the moderator winning again?

TheScreamingEagles said:

I reckon Dave's a buy.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Then again, Dave a sell I reckon

Nothing like hedging your bets

Hell no! I mean Yes!

Tories on their highest score (33.6%) in ELBOW since the very first week of the series (10th Aug = 33.7)

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/582185731872940032

1.Farage 2.Cameron 3.Miliband 4.Sturgeon 5.Clegg 6. Bennett 7.Wood

Would be my guess.

Shadsy has buzzword bingo up now. I know its a mugs bet but I could not resist "Hell Yes!"at 11.

Having seen my tip for Bennett he has raised the odds. I may be a rival for rogerdamus in forecasting skill...

Given that Cameron has an aloofness problem, psychologically being on the sidelines might subliminally be a bad place to be for him.

Probably Thursday is not a good day for him to try and do imperious....

Speaking to the YouGov chaps last week, they said, generally speaking, whomever finishes last wins these sort of events.

So do we know who will be going first, and whom will be last

JEO said:

Alistair said:

Sean_F said:

MaxPB said:

GIN1138 said:

Sean_F said:

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-03-30/big-labour-gains-forecast-for-london/

A good poll for Labour in London. Labour 46%, Con 32%. In fact, the Conservative vote share is only down 2% on 2010, but Labour is up 10%. Recent polls record swings of 3-6% to Labour in London.

Any reason's why Labour is doing so well in London versus elsewhere?

I think Ed's rent freeze is very attractive in London. A lot of my friends are willing to give it a go having seen their rents rise by over 10% a year for a few years now. The Tories need to do something about greedy landlords or they can kiss goodbye to London for a long time. Most of my friends should be natural Tory voters (higher rate tax payers, educated, private sector) and most of them are open to it, but they don't believe that the Tories are on the side of young professionals and everyone is worried about being stuck renting until their early forties.

They really, really need to do something about the private rentals sector and step in and take an axe to buy-to-let. If the Tories are ever going to win in London they absolutely have to do it. Generation rent in London (and other cities) will never vote for a party that stands for greedy landlords ripping them off.

The problem with rent controls is that they just kill off the rental sector.

I'm sure all those renting young professionals will be devastated by the sudden influx of properties on the market to buy such a move would result in.

The young professionals will do nicely. Unfortunately, it will be those on lower incomes who will lose out. As Margaret Thatcher showed us, you can not fix the market, you can only address constraints on the fundamentals of supply and demand. In the London property market that means building on the green belt, reducing immigration, or some combination of the two.

Generally I have been talking from a Tories in London point of view, so that is surely their goal. To get the young professionals voting Tory. At the moment they are split heavily towards Labour as Labour are the only party who have recognised there is a big problem with the rental market in London. Natural conservatives are being forced to look at Labour as a solution because the Tories offer literally nothing on housing in London. The new first time buyers ISA, even the first time buyers discount and help to buy do nothing for the Tories in London.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speaking to the YouGov chaps last week, they said, generally speaking, whomever finishes last wins these sort of events.

So do we know who will be going first, and whom will be last

I believe the format is 4 questions....for each question, each speaker gets 1 minute to pitch uninterrupted, then there is 15 mins of arguing among all 7*. Then rinse and repeat.

* How different people get to argue with one another I don't know.

Cheers. I reckon this is one market to avoid then.

First things first, the market MU is 110 and the overall spread is 104-123.

Which indicates selling rather than buying is technically correct.

MaxPB said:

JEO said:

Alistair said:

Sean_F said:

MaxPB said:

GIN1138 said:

Sean_F said:

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-03-30/big-labour-gains-forecast-for-london/

A good poll for Labour in London. Labour 46%, Con 32%. In fact, the Conservative vote share is only down 2% on 2010, but Labour is up 10%. Recent polls record swings of 3-6% to Labour in London.

Any reason's why Labour is doing so well in London versus elsewhere?

I think Ed's rent freeze is very attractive in London. A lot of my friends are willing to give it a go having seen their rents rise by over 10% a year for a few years now. The Tories need to do something about greedy landlords or they can kiss goodbye to London for a long time. Most of my friends should be natural Tory voters (higher rate tax payers, educated, private sector) and most of them are open to it, but they don't believe that the Tories are on the side of young professionals and everyone is worried about being stuck renting until their early forties.

They really, really need to do something about the private rentals sector and step in and take an axe to buy-to-let. If the Tories are ever going to win in London they absolutely have to do it. Generation rent in London (and other cities) will never vote for a party that stands for greedy landlords ripping them off.

The problem with rent controls is that they just kill off the rental sector.

I'm sure all those renting young professionals will be devastated by the sudden influx of properties on the market to buy such a move would result in.

The young professionals will do nicely. Unfortunately, it will be those on lower incomes who will lose out. As Margaret Thatcher showed us, you can not fix the market, you can only address constraints on the fundamentals of supply and demand. In the London property market that means building on the green belt, reducing immigration, or some combination of the two.

Generally I have been talking from a Tories in London point of view, so that is surely their goal. To get the young professionals voting Tory. At the moment they are split heavily towards Labour as Labour are the only party who have recognised there is a big problem with the rental market in London. Natural conservatives are being forced to look at Labour as a solution because the Tories offer literally nothing on housing in London. The new first time buyers ISA, even the first time buyers discount and help to buy do nothing for the Tories in London.

So what did Labour do about this problem which mostly built-up under their governance?

Labour do not have a solution, and will only end up making things worse. They always do.

I've had a small punt on Farage.

Assigning probabilities on a market like this is really hard - but I can't see beyond farage. The chance of him getting over 25% of people saying he "won" is pretty high - 70% perhaps? - and that would be enough to come first or 2nd.

Anyway, here's my stab at it;

Farage's chance of coming...

1st 35%
2nd 35%
3rd 15%
4th 5%
5-7th 10%

On that basis he is probably just about a buy at 31.

Nick Clegg is probably a sell at 13, too.

Is there going to be any actual debate or is it going to be a waffling Q&A session.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Carnyx said:

There has been a refusal to let the SNP have pre-election discussions with the Civil Service despite being arguably the 3rd Party (at least equal with LDs to error margins). Though I am not sure if this is down to the Mandarins or the Coalition. At any rate, it won't speed up the establishment of a relationship.

Seems completely correct - they have themselves categorically ruled out coalition with the Conservatives, Labour have ruled out a coalition with the SNP, and the SNP have stated that in any case they'd only support Labour on a case-by-case basis.

Since, therefore, there is no realistic prospect of them being in government, why on earth would they be involved in pre-election discussions between the Civil Service and the potential parties of government?

An interesting approach. It does however depend on what actually happens. But, in any case, the argument used to be o the basis of party support - are the goalposts not now being moved?

Pong said:

I've had a small punt on Farage.

Assigning probabilities on a market like this is really hard - but I can't see beyond farage. The chance of him getting over 25% of people saying he "won" is pretty high - 70% perhaps? - and that would be enough to come first or 2nd.

Anyway, here's my stab at it;

Farage's chance of coming...

1st 35%
2nd 35%
3rd 15%
4th 5%
5-7th 10%

On that basis he is probably just about a buy at 31.

Nick Clegg is probably a sell at 13, too.

I've sold Clegg at £2 a point and put £3 on him to win at 10-1 to smooth out the risk profile a touch.

I think Sturgeon could outperform her market expectations and there are sound arguments for Cameron, Miliband and Farage but the market is technically a sell and Clegg looks the best one to flog to me.

Cameron and Miliband both look worth a punt there - people will tend to pick the leader of their preferred party, so it's unlikely that they'll be worse than 3rd, which would give no loss for Miliband and only a small one for Cameron.

Populus:had a 2-point Labour lead on YouGov methodology - Populus weight for certainty to vote, which is slightly higher with the Tories in this poll. I don't think either does ICM-style reweighting to assume that half of don't knows go home? We could really do with an at-a-glance link to show the poll differences.

O/T but a rather startling story of possible interest to those betting on Mr Murphy's and Mr Mundell's constituencies - neither is so confident that he is willing to have his party's name on his literature, it appears:

http://www.thenational.scot/politics/murphy-and-mundell-hit-by-party-shame-accusations-over-leaflets.1540

A big question is surely what YouGov's weighting criteria will be. Are they weighting as per normal VI or to the debate audience?

Things to note once more -

Fixed odds

Farage
Cameron
Miliband
Sturgeon
Clegg
Bennett
Wood

Spreads

Farage
Cameron
Miliband
Clegg
Sturgeon
Wood
Bennett


Out of order.

Tissue_Price said:

A big question is surely what YouGov's weighting criteria will be. Are they weighting as per normal VI or to the debate audience?

It's the instant reaction poll, so they will limit to people who watched the show, then try and reweight that back to VI

This is what they did for the Farage/Clegg events last year

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ykmpjgw80r/YG-Archive-140326-Clegg-Farage.pdf

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

A big question is surely what YouGov's weighting criteria will be. Are they weighting as per normal VI or to the debate audience?

It's the instant reaction poll, so they will limit to people who watched the show, then try and reweight that to VI

Is that good or bad for any of the bods ?

My own hunch is that it is good for Labour and UKIP.

taffys said:

The Tories offer literally nothing on housing in London.

Keep shouting this from the rooftops, Mr Max. We have a number of young profs working for us and even the humblest london property is way beyond them. There is a whole army of these people and they are going to to swing it for labour.

They even know labour are cr8p, but if enough money flees London after a Milli victory, they might have a chance to buy.

As an example a 'young prof' couple could buy a house in Byfleet for c£390k. Another one, 4 beds, £340k. A flat for c£200k

I fail to see why given this opportunity anyone should feel like ruining the entire country just to be selfish.

Richard_Nabavi said:

By the same reasoning the unemployed should be charged income tax on the income they are foregoing by not working.

This is a false analogy. If you fail to work, you do not ipso facto receive income or anything equivalent to income. There is an argument, of course, that benefits should be charged to tax, but that would be administratively inconvenient and unnecessary. By contrast, an owner occupier receives the beneficial enjoyment of land, an economically productive asset, which is equivalent to receiving a rental income. Indeed, owner occupiers used to be assessed to income tax on the rental value of their properties under Schedule A to the Income Tax Act 1952 for this reason.

Seriously though, surely Wednesday is the best day for any remaining defectors to show their hand? Give Farage a lift going into the debate.....

Sturgeon and Miliband are the most interesting pair for this.

If this was a one off I think Sturgeon would be going for Miliband's throat. She wants 30 odd seats off him and one at best from the Tories. But she is going to get another go uninterrupted in the also ran debate and this is going to be her only shot at Cameron.

There is also the consideration that one way of having a go at SLAB is to prove she can be even tougher on the Conservatives than they are and the positioning above may well tend her that way.

Cameron is likely to be attacked by the Greens and PC for the same reason, everyone trying to prove who is the most lefty. And then there is Nick trying to differentiate. And of course Farage is going to be coming at him too since UKIP have a far better chance at picking up Tory seats than Labour ones.

All in all, not a comfortable night for DC. Make your points in your minute short and sharp and then hope it falls into a rammy so you can say I told you so seems the best option. Ed will get his comeuppance in the next debate. I think he is a goodish bet for coming out of this one ok as the fire is focussed on DC.

Edit, I forgot to add that Ed will want to concentrate on DC too so everyone will be leaving Nicola alone making her a good bet.

Life_ina_market_town said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

By the same reasoning the unemployed should be charged income tax on the income they are foregoing by not working.

This is a false analogy. If you fail to work, you do not ipso facto receive income or anything equivalent to income. There is an argument, of course, that benefits should be charged to tax, but that would be administratively inconvenient and unnecessary. By contrast, an owner occupier receives the beneficial enjoyment of land, an economically productive asset, which is equivalent to receiving a rental income. Indeed, owner occupiers used to be assessed to income tax on the rental value of their properties under Schedule A to the Income Tax Act 1952 for this reason.

The unemployed person gets the beneficial enjoyment of free time, which the employed person doesn't get, and which we know has an economic value because the rich pay a lot for people to do things for them in order to get more free time themselves. So the analogy is not false at all, it's perfectly reasonable.

Or, to put it in plainer English, the original suggestion is bonkers.

Plato said:

My initial reaction was Hmm for Cameron on the edge of things - then I thought a little longer. He may be out of the crosshairs and the others can fight like ferrets instead.

I can't believe CCHQ took this slot by accident or under duress.

MarqueeMark said:

Given that Cameron has an aloofness problem, psychologically being on the sidelines might subliminally be a bad place to be for him.

Probably Thursday is not a good day for him to try and do imperious....

It's a very good position for him. He's trying to portray the other 6 as a motley group of opposition parties, none of which are serious, and so it's better not to be amongst them. He just needs to be careful not to overdo it and look arrogant/aloof. I hope he's rehearsing well with some good impersonators of the other 6.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Labour have screwed up badly with their FT ad. Of course, in general it wouldn't matter a hoot what quotes they take out of context and use without permission - the average voter will not notice, and wouldn't care anyway.

However, there is one important group who will both notice and care, and that is the type of person who reads the FT. Since presumably this is precisely the group whom Labour were trying to reach, it looks like a very silly, and expensive, own-goal.

I doubt it. Those who read the FT are sophisticated enough to understand that the ad does not mean the companies concerned are endorsing Labour and that the companies themselves were bound to react. They'll also notice that none has actually disowned the quotes. None of this will come as a surprise to Labour. Instead, it looks to me like Labour is using the FT name itself, as well as the companies concerned, to counter the Tory charge that the party is anti-business among voters as a whole. Whether that will be successful and whether the money could have been better spent elsewhere are, of course, different matters entirely.

antifrank said:

Artist said:

1.Farage 2.Cameron 3.Miliband 4.Sturgeon 5.Clegg 6. Bennett 7.Wood

Would be my guess.

Interesting that you think that David Cameron and Ed Miliband will make up two of the top three. That is my belief too, which if correct makes the action on this market clearcut.

But I'm not going to get further in on this particular event.

As far as Farage goes you have to ask yourself how clever are the Lefties? Are they capable of bringing out the remark which pulls the rug from under him or are they crass enough to do his sloganising for him? To what extent do the Lefties *want* Farage to do well on the assumption that it hurts the Tories?

Richard_Nabavi said:

The unemployed person gets the beneficial enjoyment of free time, which the employed person doesn't get, and which we know has an economic value because the rich pay a lot for people to do things for them in order to get more free time themselves. So the analogy is not false at all, it's perfectly reasonable.

Or, to put it in plainer English, the original suggestion is bonkers.

Free time is not an asset that is capable of being beneficially owned and being put to economic use, unlike realty.
The situation can be looked at in another way: an owner occupier effectively pays himself the rents and profits of his estate in land. Had he let the property to a tenant, he would be charged to income tax on those rents and profits. Why should he escape liability merely by choosing to live in?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

By the same reasoning the unemployed should be charged income tax on the income they are foregoing by not working.

This is a false analogy. If you fail to work, you do not ipso facto receive income or anything equivalent to income. There is an argument, of course, that benefits should be charged to tax, but that would be administratively inconvenient and unnecessary. By contrast, an owner occupier receives the beneficial enjoyment of land, an economically productive asset, which is equivalent to receiving a rental income. Indeed, owner occupiers used to be assessed to income tax on the rental value of their properties under Schedule A to the Income Tax Act 1952 for this reason.

The unemployed person gets the beneficial enjoyment of free time, which the employed person doesn't get, and which we know has an economic value because the rich pay a lot for people to do things for them in order to get more free time themselves. So the analogy is not false at all, it's perfectly reasonable.

Or, to put it in plainer English, the original suggestion is bonkers.

Of course, the irony is, when people get lots of free time it's often nowhere near as good as they think it will be.

Retirement is a complete disaster for a lot of people.

DavidL said:

Sturgeon and Miliband are the most interesting pair for this.

If this was a one off I think Sturgeon would be going for Miliband's throat. She wants 30 odd seats off him and one at best from the Tories. But she is going to get another go uninterrupted in the also ran debate and this is going to be her only shot at Cameron.

There is also the consideration that one way of having a go at SLAB is to prove she can be even tougher on the Conservatives than they are and the positioning above may well tend her that way.

Cameron is likely to be attacked by the Greens and PC for the same reason, everyone trying to prove who is the most lefty. And then there is Nick trying to differentiate. And of course Farage is going to be coming at him too since UKIP have a far better chance at picking up Tory seats than Labour ones.

All in all, not a comfortable night for DC. Make your points in your minute short and sharp and then hope it falls into a rammy so you can say I told you so seems the best option. Ed will get his comeuppance in the next debate. I think he is a goodish bet for coming out of this one ok as the fire is focussed on DC.

Edit, I forgot to add that Ed will want to concentrate on DC too so everyone will be leaving Nicola alone making her a good bet.

Sturgeon will be looking to draw as much equivalency between Miliband and Cameron as possible.

She'll save the outright attacks for the next debate where she will have more time to work through details.

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Labour have screwed up badly with their FT ad. Of course, in general it wouldn't matter a hoot what quotes they take out of context and use without permission - the average voter will not notice, and wouldn't care anyway.

However, there is one important group who will both notice and care, and that is the type of person who reads the FT. Since presumably this is precisely the group whom Labour were trying to reach, it looks like a very silly, and expensive, own-goal.

I doubt it. Those who read the FT are sophisticated enough to understand that the ad does not mean the companies concerned are endorsing Labour and that the companies themselves were bound to react. They'll also notice that none has actually disowned the quotes. None of this will come as a surprise to Labour. Instead, it looks to me like Labour is using the FT name itself, as well as the companies concerned, to counter the Tory charge that the party is anti-business among voters as a whole. Whether that will be successful and whether the money could have been better spent elsewhere are, of course, different matters entirely.

I suspect it will be as successful as the Tories taking an ad out in the Guardian saying "trust us on the NHS".

I doubt it will change many FT readers' minds. But I doubt it was intended to.

This isn't a bet I would take on in any way. I think a lot of the outcome will depend on what questions get asked and how often. I don't know anything about the demographics of the Opinion Pollsters either. No, too many unknowns even for me and I like to make the odd crazy bets as well.

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

I doubt it. Those who read the FT are sophisticated enough to understand that the ad does not mean the companies concerned are endorsing Labour and that the companies themselves were bound to react. They'll also notice that none has actually disowned the quotes.

No, their principal reaction will be that it was unacceptable to use the quotes without permission and this will reinforce the already strong impression that business cannot trust Labour.

Of course, most readers of the FT probably agree that leaving the EU would be a very bad idea, but that's a different point.

I doubt it. FT readers understand that you do not need anyone's permission to use quotes that are on the record and in the public domain.

Itwasrigged said:

This isn't a bet I would take on in any way. I think a lot of the outcome will depend on what questions get asked and how often. I don't know anything about the demographics of the Opinion Pollsters either. No, too many unknowns even for me and I like to make the odd crazy bets as well.

Very sensible.

antifrank said:

Tissue_Price said:

I still can't quite see why Farage is favourite over Cameron in this market (spreads or fixed-odds) at all, given that the Tories are polling about 2.5 times as well and most Tories rate Cameron.

I make Nigel Farage marginal favourite over David Cameron because some Conservative voters like Nigel Farage at least as much as they like David Cameron. But I'm very happy to be on David Cameron in this market at 4/1 and 9/2.

Sold Clegg £2; Wood £1.50
Backed Dave £10 4-1; Sturgeon £5 8-1; Clegg £3 10-1; Wood £2 50-1.

So probably


Clegg
Wood
Farage
Cameron
Miliband
Sturgeon
Bennett

Is the order

Guido is already Johnny on the spot on a Freeman tax story..

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

I doubt it. Those who read the FT are sophisticated enough to understand that the ad does not mean the companies concerned are endorsing Labour and that the companies themselves were bound to react. They'll also notice that none has actually disowned the quotes.

No, their principal reaction will be that it was unacceptable to use the quotes without permission and this will reinforce the already strong impression that business cannot trust Labour.

Of course, most readers of the FT probably agree that leaving the EU would be a very bad idea, but that's a different point.

Definitely an element of preaching to the converted.