politicalbetting.com

Looking at the details of the Mayoral result?

London Elects has now released ward-level data for the Mayoral and Assembly elections. It will provide hours of fun for political anoraks such as myself, and I’ve barely scratched the surface of it. I have, however, come to several conclusions.

Firstly, Labour’s core vote strategy, which depended on portraying Johnson as a bigoted Hooray Henry, was successful across much of London. Overall, there was an average swing of 7.4% (on first preferences) across London, compared to 2004, from Livingstone to Johnson. Yet, in two boroughs, Tower Hamlets, and Newham, there were actually swings to Livingstone, of 8.9%, and 4.2% respectively, largely due to the fact that people who voted Respect in 2004, voted for Livingstone this time.

But in each borough, Johnson recorded some of the lowest increases in his overall vote share. In Brent, the swing to Johnson was kept down to 1.3%; in Hackney 1.4%; in Waltham Forest 2.6%, in Haringey 3.6%, and in Harrow, 4.6%. What all these boroughs have in common, of course, is a very high proportion of ethnic minority voters, and in particular, Muslim voters. Islamic organisations campaigned relentlessly for Livingstone. In the case of Haringey, and Hackney, a high proportion of left wing middle class voters also helped Livingstone. Had these boroughs been representative of all London, Livingstone would have won handsomely.

Secondly, it’s quite clear where Labour’s core vote strategy was completely unsuccessful. Some Conservative-inclined boroughs recorded gigantic swings to Johnson. In Havering, it was 15%; in Bexley 14.9%; in Bromley 14.2%, in Hillingdon 12.1%; in Kensington & Chelsea 10.7%, and in Wandsworth 10%. Conservative voters were highly motivated to vote for Johnson.

Thirdly, it’s quite clear among which groups Livingstone most heavily lost support, compared to 2004. White working class voters switched very heavily against him. Every ward but one on the Becontree estate, in Barking, was won by Johnson. These wards were held by Labour in 1968, and are often left uncontested by the Conservatives in local elections. New Addington and Fieldway, huge council estates in Croydon, were both won by Johnson. St. Helier, another historic Labour stronghold, in Merton, likewise fell. South Bermondsey, which has probably not elected a Conservative since before the First World War, was carried by Johnson. Indeed, Southwark as a whole recorded a swing of 10.1% to Johnson, heavily concentrated in the wards making up Simon Hughes’ Old Southwark and Bermondsey constituency, which contains both white working class voters, and many more affluent residents in riverside developments. London’s white working class voters shifted towards the Conservatives in the 1980s, but the wards I’ve just mentioned would never have been regarded as Conservative targets in that decade.

Additionally, more affluent, centrist voters, also shifted strongly against Livingstone. Richmond, and Kingston, both narrowly carried by Livingstone in 2004, showed swings to Johnson of 12% and 10.2% respectively. Wards like Winchmore Hill, Southgate Green, Brondesbury Park, and Hampstead Town, won by Livingstone, were all carried by Johnson this time. This shift, and not just high turnout among core Conservatives, also explains Johnson’s success in Wandsworth, where, again, Livingstone led in 2004.

Finally, and probably unsurprisingly, it’s clear that Jewish voters backed Johnson by an enormous margin. Garden Suburb, Golders Green, Hendon, and Edgware wards, in Barnet were all more than 30% Jewish, at the time of the 2001 census. They favoured Johnson over Livingstone by margins of 52.5%, 40.8%, 43.2%, and 50.3%, respectively, with swings ranging from 7.4% to 14.3% The one ward that Johnson carried in Hackney was Springfield, with its big Hasidic population, and it gave him a swing of 6.1%, the highest in that borough.

There was just one by-election last night, on Poole Unitary Council, Branksome East. The result was Conservative 923, Lib Dem 750, a Conservative hold, with a big swing to the Liberal Democrats.

Will the PM’s £2.7bn gamble pay off?

In the previous thread we looked at the latest betting on Crewe and Nantwich where the best you can get is 0.21/1 on the Conservative victory. I think that is going to happen but betting at that price - not my normal way of doing things.

I am coming to a view that Gordon Brown has wagered so much on next Thursday that if Labour is defeated by a significant margin then the big political question will be whether he can survive.

For not only has he borrowed a massive amount to fund the tax cut he’s also thrown all his developing policy ideas into his gamble in the so-called “draft Queen’s Speech”. On top of that he has put his personal position on the line following the media blitz.

Let nobody be in any doubt - it is Gordon’s future that is on the line next Thursday. A small defeat would just be about survivable - but what happens if the margin is anything near the 12% that ICM had before their “spiral of silence” adjuster or the 16% that the pollster had on general election voting intention in the constituency?

I am quite taken with the prices you can get on a Brown 2008 exit. Paddy Power has this at 6/1 though they are restricting your stakes somewhat. At William Hill you might be able to get a bigger bet on at their price of 5/1. UPDATE 1645 Hills have slashed the 2008 exit price to 5/2.

These prices offer much better value than is currently on offer on Betfair’s Brown departure date market.

Mike Smithson

…or have the punters got this one right?

There were suggestions yesterday that Labour “private polling” was showing that the by election may not be the foregone conclusion that it appears. I am always suspicious of anything that party machines allow to be leaked - if they have such data then let the party publish it as was done in the London Mayoral race last February.

If this is more than just spin to boost the morale of the troops then that would surely trickle out and the betting would move. The chart showing the implied probability of a Labour victory based on the odds points to a Labour boost overnight Wednesday/Thursday but since then it has moved back down again. The timing is in line with the “private poll” rumour.

So with Gordon Brown’s “relaunch” and media blitz not getting the favourable coverage that Number 10 must have been hoping for it’s hard to see any other game-changing development.

This weekend all the parties will be throwing everything at the seat and, in the past, the Lib Dems have been able to create late surges in by elections. Can the they do that again to upset the Tory tide?

By election betting.

Mike Smithson

Will the “dream ticket” happen whether Obama likes it or not?

An interesting scenario on what could happen at the Democratic Convention in August over the party’s V-P choice is set out in this piece from Huffington Post.

Jason Linkins puts it like this: “You imagine being on the floor in Denver. Hillary’s delegates, NEARLY HALF THE DELEGATES, are demanding she be on the ticket. These are true believers who have stuck with Clinton through thick and thin. To them, putting Hillary on the ticket is a crusade..Most Clinton delegates are women, most Democratic voters are women, and they’re going to just accept some middle aged white governor that Obama is rumored to want? No way. They are in your face. Hillary supporters from back home are jamming your Blackberry. This and more horror scenes flash through your mind in a nano second.”

It sounds possible.

Mike Smithson

Screen shot from the Daily Politics

What’ll be the polling impact of today’s media blitz?

It has been very hard over the past eight or nine hours to avoid Gordon Brown. He’s gone from one TV or radio studio to another doing a big series of interviews to try to seize back the initiative.

But will it have helped in the polls and at the Crewe and Nantwich by election? How will all this be going down with the public. Put bluntly is a Brown appearance a net vote winner or vote loser for Labour?

The problem he’s got is his style and his tendency to deny he’s said things even things, like on Adam Boulton this morning, which were played back to him. The danger is that these appearances just feed the media narrative. Brown’s in pickle; Brown gives away nearly £3bn; Brown feels the need to go everywhere to put his case.

Sometimes just being out of the spotlight can help. Maybe two or three weeks when there are hardly any public appearances might just take the steam out of the story.

This would also create space for some of his top team to improve their media skills by being able to talk themselves about the developments in their areas. The fact that it is only Gordon that makes the announcements just reinforces the perception that he’s a control freak.

With a bit of luck there should be an avalanche of polls in the next two to three days - maybe even something more from Crewe & Nantwich. These might give us a better picture of how the Brown fight-back is playing with the public.

Mike Smithson

Is this the first polling move in the post-Ken world?

In a number commentaries ahead of the May 1st London mayoral election I questioned whether the telephone pollsters were over-stating Ken’s support because of the way they calculated voting certainty. In fact it was this element that caused me to maintain a big betting position on the Tory even when the phone polling firms had Ken ahead.

For it was clear from the turnout history of previous mayoral races that the phone pollsters had far too many in their samples saying they were certain to vote and this, I argued, was skewing their figures. And the tendency, as was shown in the final results, was to overstate Labour and Ken.

For the problem is always that when asked how certain it is that respondents will vote a number like to show they are good citizens by rating themselves 10/10 when they probably won’t bother.

As was touched on here a couple of days ago when looking at the detail of the ICM Crewe and Nantwich poll the firm had adopted a different way of asking about voting certainty and of calculating its suggested vote shares.

In the new approach ICM asked about people’s attitude to voting itself and then weighted their turnout score in line with those answers. So three options were offered - whether they considered that it was their duty to vote; whether respondents should only vote if they cared who won, or whether it was really not worth doing at all. So those only who rated themselves 10/10 and agreed with the first option were given the highest turnout rating.

This increased the Tory share by 1% and decreased the Labour one by 1%. So the Tory lead of Labour was 2% up on what it would have been using ICM’s previous approach.

The interesting thing now is whether ICM will continue with this and what the other pollsters will do. We know that Ipsos-MORI is examining its methodology. ICM has always shown itself ready to adapt in the light of experience. After the 1992 polling debacle it brought in past vote weighting which now all but MORI follow.

So could the attitude to voting test become the standard? Possibly - and the effect is likely to be to increase marginally Tory shares and to depress Labour ones.

For those who follow the polls in their gambling this could be critical. A two point difference could have a big impact on the number of Commons seats won.

Mike Smithson