politicalbetting.com

What happens when the third party works - but doesn’t win?

A strongly argued post by the Norfolk Blogger, Nick Starling, has been picked up by several in the blogsphere for the way it powerfully sets out the dilemma facing the Lib Dems.

Reflecting on the massive changes in the political scene Nick notes that Cameron has “turned around the fortunes of the Conservative “brand”, removed the tarnish from it and has stopped people feeling embarrassed to be openly Tory. This is no little achievement and deserves praise and recognition.”

Looking back to Crewe & Nantwich and Henley where there were massive Lib Dem operations he pointedly observes “…it is clear, therefore, that the long held Lib Dem view that “Where we work - we win”, is not always going to be the case” - a view that has major strategic implications for the party.

Nick goes on: “The new strategy for the Lib Dems must be about winning seats of Labour. This has, in the past, seemed like a very low priority, and the party has to wake up to the fact that it is possible to win from Labour from a long way back (just look at Manchester Withington in 2005 as an example). I remember speaking to a Lib Dem member of staff who worked in Cowley Street in 2003 and made reference to the Blaydon result in 2001, which saw the Lib Dem candidate destroy the Labour majority and make the seat something of a potential marginal. When I asked what chance we had of winning it in 2005 his answer was “None, we have better targets”. this spoke volumes about the attitude of the Lib Dems to targeting Labour seats. There might have been “better targets”, and indeed there may have been organisational problems in the constituency, but my opinion, right or wrong, was that if Blaydon had been a Tory seat more effort might have gone in to sorting the organisational problems.”

The problem with Nick’s argument is that it runs against the instincts of many activists. We see it here on PB where some of the most furious anti-Tory rhetoric comes from Lib Dem posters - not from Labour ones. To them any let up in the fight against the Tories could be seen as a betrayal.

In terms of the general election this debate could be crucial - for if the Lib Dems are able to pick off more than a handful of Labour seats then it could have a major impact on not only the outcome but on the way Brown’s party seeks to pick itself up after the likely defeat.

As a Lib Dem myself I’ve long felt that the long-term objective must be to reclaim from Labour the position as the main party of the left. It might be getting one step nearer.

By-election betting - live latest prices

Mike Smithson

Will this increase the nervousness amongst MPs in the marginals?

The pollster which has been operating in the UK for longer than anybody else has just published their Monitor for July 2008 and it shows a move towards the Conservatives and the biggest lead for the party in decades.

These are the figures with comparisons on a month ago CON 47% (+2): LAB 27% (-2): LD 15% (-2). These figures, like all MORI surveys are based on those “certain to vote”. The fieldwork ended on July 20th - so it’s up to date.

The pollster which is the only one that does not applying a political weighting to its samples. has undergone a major methodological review which took place following the London Mayoral election. All surveys are now done by telephone and the pollster takes measures to ensure that it is not over-representing public sector workers in its samples

These latest findings mean that that two of the five firms - ICM and Populus - that regularly survey GB voting intentions have shown a narrowing of the gap over Labour while the other three - MORI, ComRes and YouGov - are reporting the opposite effect.

There was a marked move away from the Conservatives on the spread betting commons seats markets following the ICM Guardian poll on Monday night that showed that the gap was narrowing. Will this change that?

By-election betting - live latest prices

Mike Smithson

What have the double digit leads done for expectation management?

One of the main tasks for party spinners ahead of any election these days is to down-play your chances on the Thursday. For a failure to achieve an outcome that has been widely expected is much much worse than if everybody thinks that the party was going to go down anyway.

Given the precarious position of Labour and Mr. Brown nationally the Glasgow East aftermath is going to be much harder because of the two polls showing Labour victories by 14% and 17%. These have driven the widespread assumption, seen in the betting, that Labour is going to hold on.

So if Margaret Curran is defeated in the early hours of Friday morning then it’s going to have a bigger impact than at, say, Crewe & Nantwich, where just about everybody expected Labour’s Tasmin Dunwoody to lose.

I always thought that Neil Kinnock’s defeat in the 1992 general election was made much worse because almost every single poll in the campaign was pointing to the end of the Tory government. Being consistently over-stated in the polls, as Labour has been for decades, can be as big a curse as being understated.

The early information on postal voting suggests that turnout might not be as low as has been predicted. By yesterday the number received back was 2,690 of the 3,913 that were sent out. This will rise by tomorrow and points to a great interest in the election.

My view is that the bigger the turnout the better it is for the SNP and that Labour’s chances are now approaching evens.

The big question is what Tory and Lib Dem supporters will do? Will they join the anti-Labour bandwagon by supporting the party most able to hurt Brown and his government or will they stick with their allegiance? My guess is that there will be a big third and fourth party squeeze.

By-election betting - live latest prices

Mike Smithson