Why don’t punters believe the pollsters?
November 22nd, 2004
- Are gamblers ignoring massive betting value?
The spate of polls showing Labour shares in the late 30s with leads of upto 9% has, as expected, led to prices moving on the spread betting markets where punters gamble on how many seats each party will get at the General Election. SportingIndex have now shaved more off the Tories and increased Labour:- LAB 344-352 (+2): CON 202-210 (-2): LD 70-74 (n/c).
Yet the prices are not back to the levels of late July when Labour was level-pegging with the Tories in the polls and the spread markets had the party on 346-354 seats.
-
So a 1% Labour lead has become 9% but the spread is LOWER!
If you put the November ICM poll figures with the 8% Labour lead into Martin Baxter’s seat calculator you get LAB 398: CON 157: LD 62. - a Labour majority of 148. Putting in this week’s NOP 9% lead and Labour get to 400 seats again with a majority of 154.
On the face of it there is massive betting value out there that punters are simply ignoring. What’s going on? Why were they rushing to back Labour in July at 346-354 when there was 1% lead but not now the poll margin is so much bigger? And why, too, has the price on Labour getting 360+ seats MOVED OUT to 5/4? We put this down to three factors:-
We think the punters are right to be wary. The coming General Election is extraordinarily hard to call. There’s a lack of trust in Tony Blair’s Government; the Tories are not seen as being credible and the LDs have still to climb out of the “wasted vote syndrome”.
Keep your money in your wallet until things become clearer.
Round-up of General Election and other political betting odds.
SITE ENHANCEMENTS We’ve introduced a new element on the top right hand of the page showing the latest comments - just click to go straight there. This will allow users to see immediatly if there have been new comments since their last visit and will give prominence to new contributions to older discussions. It also lets me know if there has been a spam attack. Thanks to my son Robert for programming this.
To make space for this and make the right column less cluttered we’ve tidied up our links section. Out go obvious links to the BBC and CNN etc - we assume most users have these on their favourites. The individual links to the polling firms have now been scrapped in place of “Latest Polls” and to Anthony Wells’s great new site “UK Polling Report”. We’ve kept the links to the individual pollsters’ historic UK polling data.
MessageSpace Advertising
I think the point is that most people feel that the Tories are already starting the next election from pretty near rock-bottom using the core of their vote. The spreads merely reflect the resulting logic that \”the only way is up\”.
I must say I\’ve never noticed any spam attacks, so you are doing a very diligent job at moderating! The comment shortcuts are nice and hopefully will prevent interesting discussions dying abruptly when they fall off the front page.
I certainly think that the US presidential election has made people a bit wary of betting on the UK general election at the minute. I personally was absolutely convinced that Kerry would win, and was jumping for joy when the early exit polls came out. Thankfully, some part of my betting brain was still working and I used the opportunity to lay off on Betfair, but the night definitely acted as a wake up call that absolutely anything can happen in politics and that it is a place with more caveats than a Latin phrase book.
Like the enhancements (though not yet convinced by the new logo at the top of the page - the black outline and red background makes the letters difficult to read). One suggestion I have is to indicate which thread the latest comments belong to - helps me to more easily see which are the most popular discussions.
One thing I probably should add is that I have Politicalbetting as a live bookmark in my browser - updated via RSS, and this works really well. It does mean, though, that I never access the site via the \’front page\’ - the links go straight to the stories. Don\’t know if this makes any difference to anything, but it might be worth remember ing
I\’ve been playing with Mozilla over the weekend with Sage as an RSS reader. It does work well - you get the individual stories in a sidebar, and also a page with the 10 top stories (kind of a re-rendering of the \”real\” front page).
At work I\’m stuck with IE so it\’s the conventional view for me right now.
Mike, I suppose if a lot of people are using RSS it would be worth including the pertinent links in the body of each piece, rather than just directing people to the right-hand side of the page.
I think its two factors.
One is the wrong time ..just after american elections and a few weeks till christmas……….
the other is that nobody knows whats going on….!
I was at a plaid event this weekend talking to colleagues from across Wales….amongst the activist/chattering classes there is lots of anger/frustration with Labour…with the general public simply disengagement….
The overwhelming sense from people was that it was the first election since 92 where the outcome is in doubt (will Labour have a majority or is a hung parliament possible) we have little idea what is happening to our own support(outside our five key seats) but the membership is becoming more positive….always a good first sign…
The other message is that Labour MPs and Ams are complaining about lack of bodies to help and there is less Labour activity than this time last year when councillors were out getting postal votes etc….
Lord Rennards comments on GMTV reflect their strategy of trying to talk down a hung parliament, avoid the \”what will you do argument\” and dismissing the Tories. I doubt this reflects what they really think will happen.
Mark - what do *you* think *they* think will happen? Presumably a hung parliament or narrow Lab majority?
What price a Europhile Tory / LD / Anti-Blair Lab coalition?
I\’ve just been paid for a whole load of LibDem seats on spreadfair - does anyone know why?
Steve T.
Not entirely sure…..the stuff about Labour Ams Mps is just gossip really from Plaid Ams and MPs…..I think Labour will get back with a much reduced majority …so i tend to look for anything that suggests the same:)
I think there is no chance of a Tory, Lib Dem non Blair Labour grouping emerging. The bulk of Lib dems still see the Tories as the enemy…they dislike Blair becasue they think he is a bit of a Tory…but all the people involved in trying to forge closer Lib Dem Labour links are still in prominent positions in the Lib Dems ….I would expect the Lib dems to help prop up a Blair led Labour government for a year or so till Blair quits (kennedy will go as well I suspect)………..then back whoever takes over…….they simply wont make enough progress in Labour held seats this time to be able to mount a challenge……..
I thought Kennedy had said something the other day about not going into coalition with Labour in the event of a hung Parliament. Does anyone know the details? Was he saying he would not go into coalition with Blair but would with somebody else (in which case it surely means that a hung parliament means Blair goes next year which might make those odds more attractive)? Or was he saying he would force a second election? Or was he saying he would abstain on a vote of confidence or whatever and let them hobble along as a minority government? Or was he saying something completely different?
He appears to rule out coalition with Tony Blair and Labour. See this.
The rationale is that if Labour are not a nmajority the public will have delivered a vote of no confidence in them. However, i can;t see them forming a coalition with the Howard Tories (assuming he keeps his seat :)) so the implication is to let the largest party (assume its Labour) either rule as a minority government or decide to call an election.
I think the \”hung Parliament\” question is by far the most difficult one that the Lib Dems will have to face in the campaign (assuming that the polls then show it as a possible outcome). However, since the questions will come only from the Jeremy Paxmans of this world (the other parties will avoid it like the plague) Kennedy may get away with it.
What the Lib Dems will do surely depends on the arithmetic of the new HoC. Assuming that they have 60+ seats and that Labour are, say, 10-25 seats short of an overall majority, I would suggest that their best bet is to allow Blair to form a minority government and to indicate through the \”usual channels\” which bits of Labour\’s manifesto they will vote for. Their problem is that if Blair then decides to go after the (presumably lost) Euro-referendum, his successor would be very well placed to call a snap election.
***
Thankyou for sorting out this box so that it\’s no longer wider than my screen!
What worries me in a hung parliament scenario is that an enlarged DUP could be in a powerful position. It\’s not just the LDs who could have leverage.
BV - thanks for your observation on RSS. Like on all these matters I look to my son, Robert, for guidance. I just have some odd views about elections!
I think if there is a hung Parliament Blair will go very swiftly referendum or not. I would expect a referendum on electoral reform or I can\’t see the LibDems backing any government to any meaningful extent.
IA - isn\’t traditional thinking that close elections hurt the LDs as their campaign funds are exhausted by the first election?
Mike - how do you think the DUP would negatively influence parliament?
It has always been my understanding that Blair would be much more willing to work with the Liberal Democrats than the left of his own party (thus the cuddling up to Ashdown before 1997), if Labour\’s majority falls to less than 40-50 it may well be that the Liberals, unofficially,end up propping the Government to avoid the Labour whips have to make deals, day by day, with the campaign group.
I would have thought a Labour minority government would do pretty much anything to avoid a General Election after they had lost a referendum and a leader and been in some economic hot water..
Now maybe I have just been lucky, but I reckon history tells a lot. I positively ignored your advice that Lab could lose Hartlepool when you called for the Lib Dems (no surprise there then)….after all when has a Govt lost a seat that safe ?. Not in new Lab era and I suspect back to Tatchell (remember him ?) at Bermondsey.
I also backed Bush heavily. I put up a note on Betfair saying the odds were strongly in his favour. Thanks all. More importantly I reckon it is verging on the statistically impossible for Blair/Lab to lose next time. In my knowledge it has never happened that a Govt has lost a maj of this size in a single election. It is not a question of % of the vote. The kind of seats that would have to change hands in swathes is too ludicrous to imagine. You would need seats like St Helens, Hull etc to fall. It is not that I am Lab (didn\’t vote that way last time) but a recognition of what would be required. Get on. Free money.
Yeah Bermondsey was a real Govt heartland.
St Helens and Hull? I don\’t think anyone is suggesting that the Labour Party is going to have fewer than 100 seats after the next election! In fact I don\’t think anyone is saying that a Labour victory is anything other than a pretty stone cold certainty - and probably better than any bank account. But then what funds would you use to bet with?
Kevin - our call on Hartlepool was …
\”.Taking all these factors into account we still think that Labour will hold on - but by nowhere near the 33% that NOP predicted.\”
The margin was 6% not 33%. That was a pretty good call.
We\’ve never said anything other than Labour is going to win most seats at the General Election but we are are currently saying it is all too uncertain to bet on any of the three parties in the spread markets.
We said buy the LDs at 58 seats and then said sell two months later when the price went to 72 seat. That was a pretty good profitable call and we got it right at both the buying and selling ends.
We got Kerry wrong.
…but there was money to be made by trading Kerry as long as you laid off at the right point.
I can\’t see the DUP being in a position of influence, because as pregethwr says, a Lab/LD coalition is likely to kick in before the nominal arithmetic becomes really close.
If one did get to a hung Parliament, it\’s debateable whether it would be in the interest of the Lib Dems to prop up a government which had just lost the election. The likelihood is that Labour would lose further seats at a subsequent general election, and the Lib Dems might well be punished alongside them.
Also, if Labour did lose enough seats to lose their overall majority, they would probably be far too demoralised to be capable of governing effectively.
Sean - I agree. It wouldn\’t do the LDs any good to form a formal coalition with a minority Labour government. Lets face it, for Labour to be short of an absolute majority would require them to have less than a third of the popular vote, given the current electoral byas, with the Tories and LDs polling not disimilar percentages.
If we get to a hung Parliament, I should think that a minority government (Labour or Conservative) would be the likeliest outcome, with a second general election happening fairly soon after.
How does minority government work? Presumably there are two scenarios:
(a) the government offers legislation that is either passed or rejected (defacto coalition) for a full term, or
(b) carries on with an unchanged legislative programme and threatens to call an election if it is defeated
I would expect that (a) would be better suited to a government moving from majority to minority and (b) for a government from a party on the up, the idea being that a second election could see the swing to them enhanced to full majority.
The only recent example is Harold Wilson\’s government from February to October 1974, which IIRC pursued strategy (b).
And then following erosion of its majority over the parliamentary term following the second election, then did modified (a) and went for formal coalition.
I would have thought that their experience in propping up discredited Labour governments in the 70s may colour LD thinking for the future.
So the LDs have three options in an appropriately hung parliament:
1) prevent the formation of any government
2) sit in Cabinet and support a Lab or Con government for some time, possibly less than a full term
3) not sit in Cabinet and support a Lab or Con government for some time, possibly less than a full term
Re: point 23, would (3) really do the LDs more good than (2). And would (1) really help them at a subsequent general election in which voters combined apathy with a desire to kick those who were perceived as bringing down the Government?
I suspect if the LDs get some covert contacts open with non-Blair Labour figures, in a hung parliament they could engineer a Brown- or A.N. Other-led coalition. They would do best to ease Kennedy aside too. In a coalition the crucial thing for their reputation would be to have their senior figures seen as competent Cabinet ministers, and Kennedy has nowhere near the focus or rigour to achieve that himself.
Re point 27 (we were typing simultaneously), 1978-9 wasn\’t a formal coalition. Liberals did not take ministerial office, though there was a joint consultative committee on policy.
Sean, the precendents are with you. There has never been a coalition formed as the result of a hung Parliament - only as a result of war (1915, 1940) or economic crisis (1931). In 1924 Baldwin faced Parliament and lost a vote of confidence; MacDonald formed the first Labour government despite having less than 200 MPs with external Liberal support. In March 1974 Heath sought to form a coalition with the Liberals, whose leader Thorpe turned out to be the only Liberal MP in favour of it!
If he loses his majority, Blair\’s numerical position will be much more like Baldwin\’s, so you might expect him to behave the same way. However, he was intending to form a coalition in 1997 if the numbers turned out that way, so I would expect him to at least offer one in 2005. I still think this would be highly embarrassing for the Lib Dems, and would realy like to know what their supporters on this site would want them to do (or are they under strict party discipline to say nowt?)
So 78-9 was scenario 3. What was in in it for the Liberals then?
BV - re your point about a non-Blair lead Labour-LD coalition, IMHO it would have to coalesce around a set of social-democratic, socially-liberal, pro-european, internationalist policies (with an offer of PR) to last. Which senior Labour figures (apart from Robin Cook) do you think would seriously be up for that? OTOH, there are some of the pro-European, leftish Tories who might be tempted by that (Ken Clarke, John Bercow anyone?)
I can\’t foresee any circumstances in which Labour would offer PR. Suppose, for example, Labour got 34% of the vote and 300 MPs, there is simply no way that 80-90 of their MPs would be prepared to vote themselves out of a job.
Of course, it\’s possible that the Lib Dems, the bulk of the Labour Party and some left-wing Tories might set up a coalition government, but I think it\’s a long shot.
I\’m not so sure there mightn\’t be a compromise on something a bit more proportional than FPTP, a la Scotland and Wales.
Steve T, the policies you describe sound like the whole LD manifesto, and I think in practice the LDs would be more realistic on what they could get out of Labour. The LDs are moving towards jettisoning a lot of the Euro-federalism now they realise it is massively unpopular. If there were a sticking point, I think PR would be it.
As for the Tory left, I suppose Bercow might go across but he is a maverick, not a tendency. People like Clarke, ultimately, are loyal to the party even when it is not going in the direction they really want.
BV - fair point re the programme. However, if PR were on the agenda, then there would be space for a Clarke-lead Pro-euro Tories party that wouldn\’t face electoral anihilation. I could see such a party joining a centrist coalition.
[Similarly there would be space for a proper Socialist party which could split the Left off New Labour.]
I certainly believe those things would happen if PR were introduced, but more likely as an evolution from it rather than beforehand, in anticipation of it.
The chances of a hung parliament are slim…but a narrow Labour majority might leave Blair (or Brown) looking for help on specific bit of legislation…..the SNP/Plaid block of MPs could extract as much as the Lib dems from a Labour government…….
Well I\’m a LibDem supporter. I don\’t agree that Labour would not be prepared to offer some form of PR. You have to think of the circumstances which we are discussing - with perhaps 80-90 MPs already having lost their jobs.
Even the STV system we favour isn\’t completely proportional - getting a third of the vote would probably mean 250 Labour MPs. Now imagine if Blair limps on in minority, the economy turns sour, the Euro vote is lost, and the Tories have a new dynamic leader. All of these range between certainty and pretty likely. If there were another General Election the result is quite likely to be 260-270 Labour MPs anyway. The difference is that there might well be 340 Tories sitting opposite them!
The other thing we have discussed on this site many times is the fact that LibDems will find it very hard to pick up a lot of seats as they are third most places. But if the results of next May are as you hypothesise LDs will be second everywhere in Labour heartland - which will mean a lot of Labour seats previously thought safe become vlunerable. The ghost of John Major stalking Labour this time…
I don\’t believe the LibDems would support any proposal not essentially part of our manifesto without a certainly of reform - including the Lords.
Blair\’s scalp should be price for coalition with Labour. The mood at the coming election is, I believe, for a Labour-type Government to be returned but with Blair having \”his wings clipped\”. Given the flag-ship LD policy of the past two years has been anti-war how could they support a party led by the guy whose flagship policy is to follow whatever crazy venture George Bush wants?
Jon - the risk though is that being second to Labour with the view to a push in 2009 gives the Tories time to come to their senses and move towards the centre with a new dynamic leader. A socially and economically liberal Tory party might not look too disimilar to the LDs.
What the alternative is though I\’m not sure.
Steve T - 1978-79 wasn\’t a coalition (the Liberals, as they then were) simply offered support from outside the Government as they previously had to Ramsay MacDonald. But I do agree with you that in practice the Lib Dems have to attack the governing party, whichever it is, first and foremost. For this reason I continue to doubt whether they will be able, this time, to translate an increased share of the vote into more seats.
Mark, I think there would be lot of anger if SNP MPs propped up any government\’s \”English\” legislation - PC would be acceptable, but why would they, except to get a more powerful Assembly?
The SNP might want to provoke English anger….PLaid would want a parliament implemented on the basis of the recent richards commission(a very moderate proposal) ….think they will refuse to deal with Blair as we consider him unfit to be prime minister…..also as I said in the earlier post it might be a case of supporting amending various bit of legislation to achieve our objectives……
In february 74 the Tories abstained on the queens speech allowing Labour to govern and then go to the country at a time of their own choosing….wonder what they would do now….
IA - what did the Liberals have to gain in 78 by supporting Labour? I realise at the time they only had about 10 seats (?) - were they afraid that an early election would cost them seats?
Basically, yes. They had 13 seats in 1978, gaining a 14th when david Alton won the Edge Hill by-election the following May. In the 1979 election they won 11 seats.
Steve T,
The 77-79 Pact came about for 2 reasons - first, Labour was facing a vote of confience that they looked set to lose - the Lib Leader David Steel was hortrified by the idea of Mrs T - (who was about 20% ahead in the polls) winning. Secondly, and just as significantly he wanted to force his party to become more sensible & mature - and think about becoming part of the government rather than just a debating society.
Incidentally, although the Pact was bnot a formal coalition it was a formal agreement between the parties. The Libs were consulted by ministers on the govt programme - they did kill some Labour policy proposals - such as nationalising the docks but by & large they simply supporrted the Labour agenda.
I thought the Edge Hill by-election was in March 1979? I remember the poll was held just one day after the Callaghan government was defeated in the vote of confidence (after consultations between the government and the returning officer). It cannot have been in May 1979, when the General Election was held on the first Thursday of that month.
On the question of LibDem tactics in the event of a hung Parliament next year. IMO the party would reach a new formal agreement with Labour, staying on the opposition benches as in 1977-79 - but with one significant difference - it would be time limited, they would promise to support the Govt through the EU constitution referendum in Spring/Summer 2006.
This would allow the party to \”ring-fence\” their support for the govt while avoiding an election long-enough for them to fund raise for another campaign. They would make no demands about Blair\’s head - they know their limits - but also they know that other than Blair ( & possibly Cook) no other potential Labour Leader would give them as good a deal. I\’d expect any deal would have a symbolic policy price - with Labour dropping things ID Cards, and pursuing a serious Lords reform but most imp[ortantly there would have to be a deal on electoral reform. That doesn\’t have to mean PR - we could see the Alternative Vote revived as an idea ( or in the supplementary vote used to elect the London Mayor) - which would keep the same constituency boundaries but give the LDs enough of an electoral safety net to keep them happy.
Edge Hill was 29th March 1979.
In the unlikely event of a hung parliament, Blair would not remain as leader. To lose so many seats would be catastrophic, so if he didn\’t go, he would be pushed. IMHO Gordon Brown (or anyone else who has a reasonable chance of getting the leadership) would much rather try their luck in another general election than make deals on PR.
I\’m afraid a lot of you there were in Kerry land.