If we all thought the same there’d be no political betting!
Yesterday’s SELL CALL on Labour at 346 seats in the spread markets has created a good debate and opened up a split between those who think that in spite of their current performance Labour are going to do just fine in the General Election and those who think they’ll have a struggle. Nobody, though, has been bold enough to put the argument that the Tories will end up winners!
The Labour big majority backers ought to look at Labour’s position now and compare it with where they were before the 2001 General Elections.
LAST TIME by-elections - no problem. The 1997-2001 Parliament was the first since Churchill when the governing party did not lose a by-election. In the final year four rock solid seats were held without anybody missing a heartbeat and the party getting shares of 44-52%, the biggest LibD share in a Labour seat was at Tottenham with 19%.
THIS TIME by-elections - a disaster. Now you only have to mention the possiblity - like Hartlepool yesterday - and everybody recalls Leicester South with Labour votes DOWN from 22,958 to 8,620: Tories down from 9,715 to 5,796: LDs up from 7,243 up to 10,274. These are the numbers behind the Labour spread price surge . Perverse.
LAST TIME - Huge Labour poll leads in final year (excluding the petrol crisis) of upto 26%. Dropped to 9% actual on polling day which none of the pollsters predicted in the previous 12 months.
THIS TIME - Labour leads 0-5%. Where’s the evidence that Labour’s will increase by polling day? The facts point the other way with the party always getting a smaller share than almost any of the polls in the final year. What’s different this time? What’s going to happen when the UKIP effect, as in 2001, drops to just a 1.5% share?
LAST TIME 10 extra Scottish Labour seats because north of the border they have an average of 55,000 voters per constituency compared with 70,000 elsewhere.
THIS TIME the Scottish anamoly is ended. Total Scottish seats down from 72 to 59 and at least 10 of the losses are Labour.
Whatever it’s fun to speculate and to discuss. We think that Labour will get a lot less seats than the current spread markets and we rather like the Bet365, link from here, of 2/1 on Labour at 335 or less. That seems great value and with less of the risk than a spread bet.
Keep on arguing. Keep on backing big Labour seat totals because it creates better betting value.
26 comments to “Keep on arguing - it keeps the prices up!”
Yesterday was very interesting and, among other topics, correspondents identified a list of the seats that were most likely to change from Labour to Lib Dem (27 of them - which makes one think: and then thre were the Tory seats………) This went beyond the simple universal swing (which was what made it more interesting).
But what about the seats that are likely to go from Labour to Tory? Are they just the first fifty (or forty, or thirty, etc) off the top of the list, the most highly placed on Martin Baxter´s Battlemap, or can we identify other factors that ought to be taken into account?
Yesterday - talking about the Lib Dems - the seats that were identified as most likely to switch from Labour to Lib Dem (apart from the obvious, because of their closeness in 2001) were those that had a high proportion of university students as voters and also those with relatively large Muslim populations (because of their special propensity to be influenced negatively by top-up fees and by the war in Iraq, respectively - neither of which factors is likely to benefit the Tories).
Are there any other special factors that are likely to make particular groups of seats switch to the Tories? Do the Tories have any plus factor going for them? Frankly, I cannot think of any. But perhaps other readers may have some ideas.
Otherwise, Tory gains will be restricted to those seats that fall within the limits of a national swing - all fairly easy to calculate and, presumably, for Labour to counter.
Could a UKIP candidate be one such factor? If so, how could it be allowed for?
The basic fact that the Labour share will be 6-10% less than 2001 brings Tory gains which will almost all be within the national swing. The only other gains will be from the unwind of tactial voting where Lib Dems decide to vote Lib Dem even if it means letting a Tory in. If the party goes into the election at today\’s poll rating of 25% then they will be perceived as much less of a wasted vote.
There are 30-4o Labour seats that would have stayed Tory in 1997 and 2001 but for tactical voting. These will be the first to go. In broad terms there\’s been a huge collapse of trust in Blair, the Tories are remaining static, and the Lib Dems will benefit in a huge way.
If looking at Labour seats which could fall to the Tories, why not consider how the parties have performed in recent local elections, and, where appropriate, the London Assembly elections. Also look at the history of the seat.
I think the Tories will pick up a fair number of seats in suburban North London, Kent, Herts., East Anglia, yet most of these will be traditional Conservative seats reverting to type, rather than traditional marginals.
The arguments in today\’s call are compelling. However, for information, one correction may be advised. You suggest the highest Lib Dem vote share in a parliamentary by-election in the 1997-2001 Parliament was 16% in Preston. In fact the Lib Dems polled 19% in Tottenham (following the death of Bernie Grant MP) on a 12% swing from Labour.
Your point still stands, but it is worth noting that this was the first such occasion in many years where the Lib Dems started a by-election from third place and weren\’t squeezed but leap-frogged the Conservatives instead - a sign of what was yet to come perhaps? …
Martin Baxter´s Battlemap identifies 29 seats which on current form would switch from Labour to Tory, while the Lib Dems would pick up three from the Tories, leaving the Tories with a net gain of only twenty six, bringing them up to a total of 191.
According to the same calculations, there are a further 62 seats where the Tories would be within 5% of Labour, although these include several which have been identified as more likely to swith to the Lib Dems. The problem is that these calculations are already taking into account the considerable decline in Labour support.
The question is whether any \”unravelling\” of an anti-Tory tactical vote (and indeed the creation of an anti-Labour tactical vote) would be enough to allow the Tories to pick up these seats.
On the last point, obviously Lib Dem voters reject Blair, Straw and Blunkett and all their works; but I sometimes wonder whether they continue to have a sneaking regard for the more estimable kind of Labour MP (normally classified as rebels), in which case the anti-Tory vote might not unravel to the extent you anticipate.
Perhaps your correspondents in Wiltshire might have a view on this?
There is one other factor which hasn\’t been considered. One of the commented upon features of the last election was that 2001 was a vote for incumbency. There were very few marginals changing hands and in the vast majority of cases the sitting MPs in the most marginal seats increased their majority (which was balanced in the national vote figures by a large reduction in turnout in Labour heartlands). I have no idea of the figures for the forthcoming election - there have been stories of Labour MPs stepping down, disillusioned with the whole thing, but I don\’t know if they are doing so in large or small numbers in comparison with 2001 or before.
In Peter Kellner\’s article last November on the \”bias\” factors in the system that helped Labour he noted,.\”Labour MPs who won their seats in 1997 defied the (small) national swing back to the Tories in 2001. They benefited from an \”incumbency effect\”, worth 10 seats to the party at the Tories\’ expense.\”
That was then when Labour had had commanding polls leads of 50% plus for years. This is now after Iraq and the collapse of confidence in Blair. Will it apply again - who knows?
I\’ve had a whisper of a new poll in the morning which has some remarkable figures reminicent of what happened after Brent East. A big boost for the Lib Dems?
Interesting debate Mike.
I\’m waiting for someone to own up to backing the LDs outright @ 66/1 and up. If there is to be a seismic political shift in our lifetime now might be the time to clean up. I agree the spreads give realistic value and a sell of Labour allows for both a Tory revival (from where ??) and the likely LD surge towards 3 figures.
The incumbency question is a good one - of course unpopular incumbents are a liability - but are we realy at the stage that Blair and Labour are seen in the same light as Major and the Conservatices in 1996/7.
I think the answer to that is a resounding \’no\’ and we are far away from the sort of seismic shift that see the Lib Dems replace one of the main parties. Therefore - we have a similar election to 2001 - low turn-out, apathetic Labour, no real wish for the Tories and the Lib Dems making modest progress. I\’d be very surprised if more than 50 seats in total change hands.
I\’d be pretty much in agreement with Dan here. Apathy will be the dominant issue on 05/05/05; the big questions then become: if the Conservative Party is only 4-5% behind in the polls, but lose by 100+ seats, will they then support PR (or at least question the current electoral system)? And, what direcion will the Conservative Party go - Letwinism? UKIP-wannabees? there are so many options, but no clear intellectual primacy. It will be an intriguing time.
John - I have been been having exactly the same thought and put £10 on the Lib Dems at 66/1 last night. At that price it\’s worth a punt. According to Martin\’s Battlemap if the Tories drop to 26%, their Euro Elections total, and Labour slips to 26%, their local elections share in June, then its LIBD 505: LAB 68: CON 41. Who\’ll be demanding PR then?
Those shares are not very far off for both of the main parties.
The Lib Dem problem remains the same. They dont know whether they should be trying to replace Labour on the left or the Tories on the right. If they want a breakthrough, they need to spend every day of the next year leading marches under \”Tony and Gordon=Warmongers\” and \”Tony and Gordon=Tuition Fees\” banners, and try to whip the energised anti-war left of center base out from under the Labour party, in the manner of the recent by-elections. The opportunity is there, and may never be there again. If it lets in the Tories in a few seats, tant pis.
I completely agree with Otto - there has never been a better time for the Lib Dems to seek to replace Labour on the left. They\’ve gone about as far as they can squeezing the Tories who have bottomed out.
Today\’s poll, which I had a hint of last night and mentioned it in message nine, is extraordinary. The Labour collapse to 30% takes the party share back to the times of Michael Foot twenty years ago.
Others aren\’t broken down, although UKIP is presumably c.6% or so.
Effectively, the three main parties are level-pegging. If one compares Populus\’s prediction with their prediction, and outcome, for the European election, then the Conservatives would have 31%, Labour 27-28%, Lib Dems 24-26%.
Which would be an interesting outcome. It\’s anybody\’s guess what that would translate to in seats.
Think about the scenario wher the LibDems did have a breakthrough from the left (anti-war, anti-tuition fees) to 80-100 seats, and Labour are the biggest party but with a minority of seats. Not at all unlikely.
Now notice the Labour party\’s real difficulties in that circumstance. Unlike if this had been the outcome in say 1997, where a anti-Tory pact would have been possible after 18 years of exclusion from power, Blair, or any pro-war labour leader, could not go into a coalition government with the LibDems, since they would have been campaigning most against him, not against the Tories. And the Labour party would be nervous of calling another election immediately, since the Lib Dems would be on a roll. And there\’s no chance of Labour and the Conservatives in coalition, is there? A very tricky position. The LibDems would probably want to force another election quickly.
Is there a market where we can bet on the timing of the next election after this one?
Sean - applying Martin Baxter to your adjusted numbers we get -
For CON 31 - LAB 28
C231 LAB 242 LD142
For CON 31 - LAB 27
C234 LAB 200 LD 181
As to coalition scenarios I would love a betting market on that. I think it would be very hard for a deal to be done with a Labour party that had just lost a huge majority in this way. The Tories would agree to almost anything and, remember, that Malcolm Rifkind will be back as an MP. He was more anti-war than the rest of his party and appears very much a libertarian. Could he be the Prime Minister that the Lib Dems would agree to go into coalition with?
That really is a remarkably short-term strategy. Get into a bargining position thanks to lots of disaffected left-wing labour voters and then….. get into bed with the Tories! Brilliant. I\’m not sure you\’ll do so well in the next election after that.
Perhaps a Con/Lab grand coalition? I still don\’t see UKIP winning 6% at a general election, which probably strengthens the Conservatives\’ real position.
Fascinating Mike, how a 1% reduction in the Labour vote costs them 42 seats in that scenario. We really would be back to the 1920s, if anything like that result came about.
Yesterday was very interesting and, among other topics, correspondents identified a list of the seats that were most likely to change from Labour to Lib Dem (27 of them - which makes one think: and then thre were the Tory seats………) This went beyond the simple universal swing (which was what made it more interesting).
But what about the seats that are likely to go from Labour to Tory? Are they just the first fifty (or forty, or thirty, etc) off the top of the list, the most highly placed on Martin Baxter´s Battlemap, or can we identify other factors that ought to be taken into account?
Yesterday - talking about the Lib Dems - the seats that were identified as most likely to switch from Labour to Lib Dem (apart from the obvious, because of their closeness in 2001) were those that had a high proportion of university students as voters and also those with relatively large Muslim populations (because of their special propensity to be influenced negatively by top-up fees and by the war in Iraq, respectively - neither of which factors is likely to benefit the Tories).
Are there any other special factors that are likely to make particular groups of seats switch to the Tories? Do the Tories have any plus factor going for them? Frankly, I cannot think of any. But perhaps other readers may have some ideas.
Otherwise, Tory gains will be restricted to those seats that fall within the limits of a national swing - all fairly easy to calculate and, presumably, for Labour to counter.
Could a UKIP candidate be one such factor? If so, how could it be allowed for?
The basic fact that the Labour share will be 6-10% less than 2001 brings Tory gains which will almost all be within the national swing. The only other gains will be from the unwind of tactial voting where Lib Dems decide to vote Lib Dem even if it means letting a Tory in. If the party goes into the election at today\’s poll rating of 25% then they will be perceived as much less of a wasted vote.
There are 30-4o Labour seats that would have stayed Tory in 1997 and 2001 but for tactical voting. These will be the first to go. In broad terms there\’s been a huge collapse of trust in Blair, the Tories are remaining static, and the Lib Dems will benefit in a huge way.
If looking at Labour seats which could fall to the Tories, why not consider how the parties have performed in recent local elections, and, where appropriate, the London Assembly elections. Also look at the history of the seat.
I think the Tories will pick up a fair number of seats in suburban North London, Kent, Herts., East Anglia, yet most of these will be traditional Conservative seats reverting to type, rather than traditional marginals.
The arguments in today\’s call are compelling. However, for information, one correction may be advised. You suggest the highest Lib Dem vote share in a parliamentary by-election in the 1997-2001 Parliament was 16% in Preston. In fact the Lib Dems polled 19% in Tottenham (following the death of Bernie Grant MP) on a 12% swing from Labour.
Your point still stands, but it is worth noting that this was the first such occasion in many years where the Lib Dems started a by-election from third place and weren\’t squeezed but leap-frogged the Conservatives instead - a sign of what was yet to come perhaps? …
Duncan - you are right. I\’ve corrected the main piece. Many thanks.
I think Duncan is being modest here; surely the Tottenham result was down to the Lib Dem candidate…
Martin Baxter´s Battlemap identifies 29 seats which on current form would switch from Labour to Tory, while the Lib Dems would pick up three from the Tories, leaving the Tories with a net gain of only twenty six, bringing them up to a total of 191.
According to the same calculations, there are a further 62 seats where the Tories would be within 5% of Labour, although these include several which have been identified as more likely to swith to the Lib Dems. The problem is that these calculations are already taking into account the considerable decline in Labour support.
The question is whether any \”unravelling\” of an anti-Tory tactical vote (and indeed the creation of an anti-Labour tactical vote) would be enough to allow the Tories to pick up these seats.
On the last point, obviously Lib Dem voters reject Blair, Straw and Blunkett and all their works; but I sometimes wonder whether they continue to have a sneaking regard for the more estimable kind of Labour MP (normally classified as rebels), in which case the anti-Tory vote might not unravel to the extent you anticipate.
Perhaps your correspondents in Wiltshire might have a view on this?
There is one other factor which hasn\’t been considered. One of the commented upon features of the last election was that 2001 was a vote for incumbency. There were very few marginals changing hands and in the vast majority of cases the sitting MPs in the most marginal seats increased their majority (which was balanced in the national vote figures by a large reduction in turnout in Labour heartlands). I have no idea of the figures for the forthcoming election - there have been stories of Labour MPs stepping down, disillusioned with the whole thing, but I don\’t know if they are doing so in large or small numbers in comparison with 2001 or before.
In Peter Kellner\’s article last November on the \”bias\” factors in the system that helped Labour he noted,.\”Labour MPs who won their seats in 1997 defied the (small) national swing back to the Tories in 2001. They benefited from an \”incumbency effect\”, worth 10 seats to the party at the Tories\’ expense.\”
That was then when Labour had had commanding polls leads of 50% plus for years. This is now after Iraq and the collapse of confidence in Blair. Will it apply again - who knows?
I\’ve had a whisper of a new poll in the morning which has some remarkable figures reminicent of what happened after Brent East. A big boost for the Lib Dems?
Interesting debate Mike.
I\’m waiting for someone to own up to backing the LDs outright @ 66/1 and up. If there is to be a seismic political shift in our lifetime now might be the time to clean up. I agree the spreads give realistic value and a sell of Labour allows for both a Tory revival (from where ??) and the likely LD surge towards 3 figures.
The incumbency question is a good one - of course unpopular incumbents are a liability - but are we realy at the stage that Blair and Labour are seen in the same light as Major and the Conservatices in 1996/7.
I think the answer to that is a resounding \’no\’ and we are far away from the sort of seismic shift that see the Lib Dems replace one of the main parties. Therefore - we have a similar election to 2001 - low turn-out, apathetic Labour, no real wish for the Tories and the Lib Dems making modest progress. I\’d be very surprised if more than 50 seats in total change hands.
I\’d be pretty much in agreement with Dan here. Apathy will be the dominant issue on 05/05/05; the big questions then become: if the Conservative Party is only 4-5% behind in the polls, but lose by 100+ seats, will they then support PR (or at least question the current electoral system)? And, what direcion will the Conservative Party go - Letwinism? UKIP-wannabees? there are so many options, but no clear intellectual primacy. It will be an intriguing time.
John - I have been been having exactly the same thought and put £10 on the Lib Dems at 66/1 last night. At that price it\’s worth a punt. According to Martin\’s Battlemap if the Tories drop to 26%, their Euro Elections total, and Labour slips to 26%, their local elections share in June, then its LIBD 505: LAB 68: CON 41. Who\’ll be demanding PR then?
Those shares are not very far off for both of the main parties.
The Lib Dem problem remains the same. They dont know whether they should be trying to replace Labour on the left or the Tories on the right. If they want a breakthrough, they need to spend every day of the next year leading marches under \”Tony and Gordon=Warmongers\” and \”Tony and Gordon=Tuition Fees\” banners, and try to whip the energised anti-war left of center base out from under the Labour party, in the manner of the recent by-elections. The opportunity is there, and may never be there again. If it lets in the Tories in a few seats, tant pis.
I completely agree with Otto - there has never been a better time for the Lib Dems to seek to replace Labour on the left. They\’ve gone about as far as they can squeezing the Tories who have bottomed out.
Today\’s poll, which I had a hint of last night and mentioned it in message nine, is extraordinary. The Labour collapse to 30% takes the party share back to the times of Michael Foot twenty years ago.
Mike:
Thanks. Which poll is that? URL please.
No URL - sorry to say. It\’s Populus in the News of the World - I had to buy a copy because it\’s not on their web-site.
Could you then please post the Lab/LibDem/Con/UKIP/Other figures? I am out of the UK at the moment. Thanks.
Labour 30%; Con 28%; LD 28%, Others 14%.
Others aren\’t broken down, although UKIP is presumably c.6% or so.
Effectively, the three main parties are level-pegging. If one compares Populus\’s prediction with their prediction, and outcome, for the European election, then the Conservatives would have 31%, Labour 27-28%, Lib Dems 24-26%.
Which would be an interesting outcome. It\’s anybody\’s guess what that would translate to in seats.
Sean - Thanks.
Think about the scenario wher the LibDems did have a breakthrough from the left (anti-war, anti-tuition fees) to 80-100 seats, and Labour are the biggest party but with a minority of seats. Not at all unlikely.
Now notice the Labour party\’s real difficulties in that circumstance. Unlike if this had been the outcome in say 1997, where a anti-Tory pact would have been possible after 18 years of exclusion from power, Blair, or any pro-war labour leader, could not go into a coalition government with the LibDems, since they would have been campaigning most against him, not against the Tories. And the Labour party would be nervous of calling another election immediately, since the Lib Dems would be on a roll. And there\’s no chance of Labour and the Conservatives in coalition, is there? A very tricky position. The LibDems would probably want to force another election quickly.
Is there a market where we can bet on the timing of the next election after this one?
Sean - applying Martin Baxter to your adjusted numbers we get -
For CON 31 - LAB 28
C231 LAB 242 LD142
For CON 31 - LAB 27
C234 LAB 200 LD 181
As to coalition scenarios I would love a betting market on that. I think it would be very hard for a deal to be done with a Labour party that had just lost a huge majority in this way. The Tories would agree to almost anything and, remember, that Malcolm Rifkind will be back as an MP. He was more anti-war than the rest of his party and appears very much a libertarian. Could he be the Prime Minister that the Lib Dems would agree to go into coalition with?
That really is a remarkably short-term strategy. Get into a bargining position thanks to lots of disaffected left-wing labour voters and then….. get into bed with the Tories! Brilliant. I\’m not sure you\’ll do so well in the next election after that.
Perhaps a Con/Lab grand coalition? I still don\’t see UKIP winning 6% at a general election, which probably strengthens the Conservatives\’ real position.
Fascinating Mike, how a 1% reduction in the Labour vote costs them 42 seats in that scenario. We really would be back to the 1920s, if anything like that result came about.
Chilean.maturation veined defer vanquish astronaut develops Ramo
qualm offended cryogenic onward Adelia coals Bogartian stepping suggestions