politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Many congratulations to those who called it right

MarqueeMark said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

MARTIN !!

@PickardJE: Andrew Rawnsley: "The Lib Dem MPs will all fit in one taxi."

How many are there

8

Oh Who are the others

Life_ina_market_town said:

If the Tories have any sense, they will repeal the monstrous Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

Yep. Someone upthread commented that they could circumvent it by voting down their own government (with a simple majority), then voting down the next government which forms (again, with a simple majority). Laughable.

Good start for the new government. They've already created fifty new jobs in Scotland. The SNP should be grateful.

Hmnm. On Tuesday of this week I told mr Morris Dancer I thought labour would get 220 or less. Looks like I won't be far wrong. Shorted labour seats in the 260s waiting for the make up.

Any idea on ETA of Thanet South result? Or leak as to what the result is?

TGOHF said:

GeoffH said:

JosiasJessop said:

Oh, fantabulous day!

My concern about the pollsters seems to have been proved right. We're going to have to see some massive changes, but I cannot really see how they can improve things.

One thing they must do is stop doing polls on a daily basis. Once a week for each of the companies is enough.

If - as they were - inaccurate on vote shares, then publishing daily polls is an attempt by the polls themselves and not those seeking election to set the mood music, to set the narrative. And that is wrong.

They seem to be asking the wrong mix of people.

What I find interesting about the polls is that they were broadly right on the one thing we all thought they would have the most difficulty with - which was the UKIP vote share. If they had been catastrophically wrong on that and as a result we had the Tory win we have today then perhaps it could have been understandable given the difficulties with a relatively new party with a rapidly rising vote share since the last election.

But since they got UKIP about right then it is strange that they were consequently so rwong about the overall Labour/Tory share.

My view is that UKIP had a far larger impact on the Labour vote than on the Tory vote and this accounts for some of the problems the pollsters had. They got the amount of votes right for UKIP but they got it utterly wrong on where those votes were coming from.

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

MARTIN !!

@PickardJE: Andrew Rawnsley: "The Lib Dem MPs will all fit in one taxi."

How many are there

Enough to need one of those family estate cars with 7 passenger seats.

david_herdson said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The_Apocalypse said:

EPG said:

Purseybear said:

Quick post re. comparisons to 1992-7. You have to remember that came at the fag-end of a 11 year rule and the Conservatives were in internal warfare over the deposition of Margaret Thatcher. In addition the ERM fiasco so early on derailed them for the remainder of the parliament.

I think Cameron will have a very different experience with a lot more self-discipline based on a desire to win next time. Also don't forget that 230 Lab + 55 SNP is a very different opposition from 285 Lab. Quite apart from anything else SNP MP's will not attend and vote at Westminster the whole time.

But they've got literally one thing to fight for together. What manifesto did they run on? Out of Europe referendum, and... ? ? ? ? This gap weakens Cameron's authority to tell them to do anything.

Exactly. There are three things which are significant obstacles for the Tories; EU ref, austerity impact, and Scotland. On top of that, if Cameron goes after 2017 it will feel like the end of an era and the 'fag-end' of a government.

Or if Cameron goes after 2017 it feels as a fresher, rejuvenated government.

Really? Cameron by far is their biggest asset. Boris isn't a sure-fire bet to succeed and the likes of Osborne are walking electoral disasters.

Three to four years is a long time for someone else to emerge. People like Major, Blair or Cameron (or Miliband or IDS for less successful ones) were a long way below the radar that length of time before they became leader of their party.

Not really. The Miliband brothers were talked of some years before their rise to prominence, as Johnathan notes this was the same for Blair and Brown. The Tories I see tipped on here are the likes of Shapps, Osborne, and Javid; who I don't think are electorally viable candidates.

Financier said:

Fenster said:

Financier said:

Scott_P said:

@WillHillBet: Next Labour Party Leader http://t.co/DNw3WBnJyf
7/4 Chuka Umunna
5/2 Andy Burnham
3/1 Yvette Cooper
8/1 Dan Jarvis
12 David Miliband

All disastrous choices

Yvette Cooper and Dan Jarvis would both be excellent choices.

Why?

Cooper would be their first female leader. She's clever and comes across as tolerant and sensible - she will likely have more support in the party than Miliband did.

Jarvis has a great back story. A normal upbringing, a decorated soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a likeable way about him.

Hell,no...What a dramatic defeat for Labour-Embarassing.

My only little consolation is that we won in Ealing Central and Acton where I canvassed by a very slim margin.

EPG said:

david_herdson said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SouthamObserver said:

Vince Cable's loser speech was probably the least gracious of those made by high profile losers. He also did least well in hiding his disappointment. The tearful Tory who defeated him looked like she could not believe it.

I agree about Vince. A bad loser underneath his "elderly statesman" veneer. Having spent his time talking about nuking his partners, he got his just deserts for his duplicity and whining.

Cable personifies what went wrong with the Lib Dems. Rather than bargain hard then stick to the deal, they consistently rolled over and then tried to distance themselves, with the result that they looked neither capable or trustworthy.

This is the Tory analysis. The Lib Dems should have been nicer to the Tories, and let the Tories do more Tory things. But half their 2010 voters, at least, quit for the Greens and Labour, and a few went to Ukip and Conservative. How would being a Tory-enabler have helped that?

They should have bagged their own policies in return and then run on that record. To have done so would have meant taking on departmental ministries, the failure to argue for was the first and one of the most serious of Clegg's errors.

Fenster said:

Financier said:

Fenster said:

Financier said:

Scott_P said:

@WillHillBet: Next Labour Party Leader http://t.co/DNw3WBnJyf
7/4 Chuka Umunna
5/2 Andy Burnham
3/1 Yvette Cooper
8/1 Dan Jarvis
12 David Miliband

All disastrous choices

Yvette Cooper and Dan Jarvis would both be excellent choices.

Why?

Cooper would be their first female leader. She's clever and comes across as tolerant and sensible - she will likely have more support in the party than Miliband did.

Jarvis has a great back story. A normal upbringing, a decorated soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a likeable way about him.

Yes but the important support needed is from outside the current party faithful.

If Labour has any sense - hmmmm - they'll forbid anyone who was a cabinet minister between 1997 and 2010 from standing for the leadership. Let Chukka, Liz, Dan and co battle it out. For me Jarvis would buy Labour by far the best hearing in the country generally, but I doubt he has the base as yet within the party.

There are limits to personal vote - we found that in spades today with Huppert, Clegg, Swinson, Danny A, even Carmichael

Lab gains from Con (10): Lancaster, Wolv' SW, Dewsbury, Brentford, Hove, Enfield N, Chester, Wirral W, Ealing C, Ilford N.

Con gains from Lab (8): Bolton W, Southampton Itchen, Derby N, Morley, Telford, Plymouth Moor View, Gower, Vale of Clwyd.

Just saw that DCS was decided by 798 votes! £50 in lost winnings that cost me.

What is turnout looking like?

Miliband " Scottish Nationalism overwhelmed us"

so absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Tories ripping you a new one in England and Wales then?

6 required now

So let me get this straight. Labour dramatically underperformed its poll share like it has done in every election since 2014? See my many posts to that effect over recent weeks.

watford30 said:

JackW is the STOAT.

Supreme Tipster Of All Time.

And he didn't budge when essentially everyone else thought the polls had proved him wrong. Amazing.

AndyJS said:

Lab gains from Con (10): Lancaster, Wolv' SW, Dewsbury, Brentford, Hove, Enfield N, Chester, Wirral W, Ealing C, Ilford N.

Con gains from Lab (8): Bolton W, Southampton Itchen, Derby N, Morley, Telford, Plymouth Moor View, Gower, Vale of Clwyd.

Very similar to 2001 - ie almost zero net change.

david_herdson said:

EPG said:

david_herdson said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SouthamObserver said:

Vince Cable's loser speech was probably the least gracious of those made by high profile losers. He also did least well in hiding his disappointment. The tearful Tory who defeated him looked like she could not believe it.

I agree about Vince. A bad loser underneath his "elderly statesman" veneer. Having spent his time talking about nuking his partners, he got his just deserts for his duplicity and whining.

Cable personifies what went wrong with the Lib Dems. Rather than bargain hard then stick to the deal, they consistently rolled over and then tried to distance themselves, with the result that they looked neither capable or trustworthy.

This is the Tory analysis. The Lib Dems should have been nicer to the Tories, and let the Tories do more Tory things. But half their 2010 voters, at least, quit for the Greens and Labour, and a few went to Ukip and Conservative. How would being a Tory-enabler have helped that?

They should have bagged their own policies in return and then run on that record. To have done so would have meant taking on departmental ministries, the failure to argue for was the first and one of the most serious of Clegg's errors.

No party tries not to implement its policies. Perhaps the Tories outmanouvered them with institutional experience of government, but it's hard to say what at all they could have done about that.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

GeoffH said:

JosiasJessop said:

Oh, fantabulous day!

My concern about the pollsters seems to have been proved right. We're going to have to see some massive changes, but I cannot really see how they can improve things.

One thing they must do is stop doing polls on a daily basis. Once a week for each of the companies is enough.

If - as they were - inaccurate on vote shares, then publishing daily polls is an attempt by the polls themselves and not those seeking election to set the mood music, to set the narrative. And that is wrong.

They seem to be asking the wrong mix of people.

What I find interesting about the polls is that they were broadly right on the one thing we all thought they would have the most difficulty with - which was the UKIP vote share. If they had been catastrophically wrong on that and as a result we had the Tory win we have today then perhaps it could have been understandable given the difficulties with a relatively new party with a rapidly rising vote share since the last election.

But since they got UKIP about right then it is strange that they were consequently so rwong about the overall Labour/Tory share.

My view is that UKIP had a far larger impact on the Labour vote than on the Tory vote and this accounts for some of the problems the pollsters had. They got the amount of votes right for UKIP but they got it utterly wrong on where those votes were coming from.

Absolutely right Richard. I've been saying for years that its absurd to just add Conservative and UKIP together and say "this is what Cameron should have if ..." - if the UKIP voters wanted Conservative, they'd vote Conservative.

UKIP have gained a large number of Lib Dem votes as protest voters abandoned the Lib Dems who went into government and went to the new, upstart protest party.
This prevented the Labour "Lib Dem crutch" that OGH has spoken about for years.
UKIP have also absorbed votes that could have gone to the opposition party of Labour.

UKIP have displaced Lib Dems as the protest party and there's been essentially no Labour:Tory swing.

UKIP are not Tories, hopefully that myth can be dispelled for good now.

Done deal. Lizzy is on her way back from Windsor to see Cameron at 1230

PEMWAS

Jonathan said:

MikeSmithson said:

Fenster said:

dyedwoolie said:

Pulpstar said:

News from North Norfolk ?

Lamb Hung on by 4k

I think he is high quality Norman Lamb. The Lib Dems could coalesce around him and try to make a comeback fighting in by-elections.

I still believe the Lib Dems will bounce back from this.

I agree with that. Lamb is the right person not Farron.

Can Lamb mend bridges with Labour and Labour voters? Because that is what they need to happen.

He is the smartest LD left standing with a very nice manner.

Current vote share in England:

Con 41%
Lab 32%
UKIP 14%
LD 8%
Greens 4%

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/england

Jonathan said:

david_herdson said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The_Apocalypse said:

EPG said:

Purseybear said:

Quick post re. comparisons to 1992-7. You have to remember that came at the fag-end of a 11 year rule and the Conservatives were in internal warfare over the deposition of Margaret Thatcher. In addition the ERM fiasco so early on derailed them for the remainder of the parliament.

I think Cameron will have a very different experience with a lot more self-discipline based on a desire to win next time. Also don't forget that 230 Lab + 55 SNP is a very different opposition from 285 Lab. Quite apart from anything else SNP MP's will not attend and vote at Westminster the whole time.

But they've got literally one thing to fight for together. What manifesto did they run on? Out of Europe referendum, and... ? ? ? ? This gap weakens Cameron's authority to tell them to do anything.

Exactly. There are three things which are significant obstacles for the Tories; EU ref, austerity impact, and Scotland. On top of that, if Cameron goes after 2017 it will feel like the end of an era and the 'fag-end' of a government.

Or if Cameron goes after 2017 it feels as a fresher, rejuvenated government.

Really? Cameron by far is their biggest asset. Boris isn't a sure-fire bet to succeed and the likes of Osborne are walking electoral disasters.

Three to four years is a long time for someone else to emerge. People like Major, Blair or Cameron (or Miliband or IDS for less successful ones) were a long way below the radar that length of time before they became leader of their party.

Hardly, for example Blair and Brown were cited as future leaders before 92.

Loads of people are cited as future leaders but few ever make it. I didn't mention Brown on purpose; he was an exception. But four years before Blair became leader, he was Shadow Employment Secretary. From what I remember, he did quite well in the job and showed potential to go further but it was far from clear that he'd be a leader.

The point is that by 2018/19, I expect people like May and Hammond will have had their day. Hague has already retired. Six Lib Dems have left the cabinet. There'll be a lot of upward movement and some will come good enough to be potential leaders by the end of the parliament.

Alistair said:

glw said:

watford30 said:

JackW is the STOAT.

Supreme Tipster Of All Time.

And he didn't budge when essentially everyone else thought the polls had proved him wrong. Amazing.

His SNP score was hot garbage.

Maybe so, but it was for his assessment of Miliband and predictions of Con and Lab seats that he was taking a lot of stick.

Scott_P said:

@SkyPolly: Hearing Nigel Farage will address cameras at 1030

Why? Would be bad manners to anticipate the declaration.

Pulpstar said:

Nick Clegg has pretty much destroyed the Lib Dems

They were complicit in their own destruction. As leader he bears much responsibility, but they backed going into coalition, didn't break away earlier and didn't force him to stand down before this GE. It would be a mistake for the party, what is left of it, to take the easy route and blame it all on him and what he did. They won't learn properly from that.

How many of the fallen will end up in the Lords

The common link between ghe Tories and SNP is very strong leader ratings. Of course FFA will be offered to the Scots now. I think the unionis pretty much done.

EICIPM...oh,wait there ;-)

RobD said:

Ishmael_X said:

bigjohnowls said:

TGOHF said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip_Thompson said:

EICINELOTO

Ed Is Crap Is Not Even Leader Of The Opposition

Thank God

Will there me modifications to the BJESUS methodology for 2020 ?

No more of that Crap from me.

I am off to enjoy my retirement and will be interested to see how the next 5 years pan out.

I do hope that doesn't mean off from the site. The loss of the poster who coined EICIPM would impoverish it.

Quite right. I assume you'll be enjoying PB for years to come BJO!

No I will be around for sure.

Mrs BJ retires later this year so maybe less frequently after that but it is bloody addictive so maybe just as much.

One for the road for now Eds Idiotic Cameron Is PM (EICIPM)

NoEasyDay said:

Arrghh the day does get better, just seen the terrorist apologist Galloway has gone. Is it too early to open Champagne ?

Champagne tastes best at breakfast.

AndyJS said:

Final SNP vote share: 49.97%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland

I laid 50% at evens about 8 hours ago

compouter2 said:

EICIPM...oh,wait there ;-)

Your comment last night genuinely made me think we'd have EICIPM.

Uk map is Maggie Simpson

Lynsey Kiely (@lynseykiely)
08/05/2015 09:47
#GE2015 pic.twitter.com/AuCQN5VosF

Thought it was toast 25 quid lol

Can I just say -

CON MAJORITY NAILED ON!

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Smithson, commiserations on the costly night.

I recall Norman Lamb (and Liam Fox) on Question Time at the height of the tuition fees issue (with an audience packed with teachers), facing Sadiq Khan. Whether it's Lamb's brilliance or Khan's rubbishness, the audience somehow ended up on the side of Lamb and Fox despite the yawning open goal.

Incidentally, did Farron win?

Yep

MikeL said:

TGOHF said:

AndyJS said:

Current vote share in England:

Con 41%
Lab 32%
UKIP 14%
LD 8%
Greens 4%

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/england

Cons need to be 11% ahead to win a majority remember

That was across the whole of GB.

In fact, they will win a majority with a lead of 6%!

Oh but I thought the Tories would be losing seats to Labour up to 6%