politicalbetting.com

Charles Kennedy’s Catch-22

At their conference in Bournemouth in September the Lib Dems made great play of the fact that their goal was to replace the Tories as the party of opposition and they are still repeating the line, even today, which looks set to become a big plank of their General Election campaign.

Given the current dynamic of the Tories remaining static and the big switch being between Labour and the LDs then the party is likely to end the election being even further behind the Tories in terms of the number of MPs than they are at the moment. The more successful Charles Kennedy’s party is in securing Labour votes the better things will be for the Tories.

If you want to define a goal in relation to another party then at least choose one that’s on the decline. Michael Howard’s party might not be moving forward but they are not moving back either.

In our article last week we argued that the mathematics of the coming election mean that if the Tories remain on their 32.7% share of last time then the party picks up four times as many seats as the Lib Dems for each percentage point of vote share that switches from Labour. This is not about reverse tactical voting but the simple operation of the uniform national swing using Martin Baxter’s calculator to the last General Election result.

Last time the LDs got 52 MPs to the Tory tally of 165 - 113 seats behind. It is very hard seeing how that margin will reduce making the LDs “replacing the Tories” rhetoric” look very sick indeed. The party goal will look even further away after the election than it does at the moment.

The LDs might be able to present their relative improvment on the Tories in terms of votes, which is almost certain to happen, as a great success. But the heart of the problem is the first-past-the-post electoral system and how vote changes affect each seat.

In the coming months the Lib Dems need to refine their rhetoric so it is clear they are talking about votes and not seats otherwise the outcome could look like a big failure.

Latest Lib Dem General Election seat spreads from Spreadfair - the spreadbetting exchange. 68-71.5 seats.

Mike Smithson

Telegraph commentator says LDs might be a good buy

We don’t know whether Tony Blair is a regular on the site yet but a feature in the Daily Telegraph today by George Trefgarne states that “For real political anoraks, the website of choice is politicalbetting.com.”

Whether the thousands of users who come onto the site each day share that view of themselves we do not know but there is little doubt that a huge amount of detailed knowledge about what is going on throughout the country is shared here by the site’s many contributors.

In an end of year assessment of the current political scene and how the betting markets are moving Trefgarne looks at tactical vote unwind, the latest state of the polls and how well the Lib Dems might do. It’s worth reading.

He observes Like millions of others, the followers of politicalbetting.com are deeply depressed at the surprising uselessness of Michael Howard’s Tories. Prices reflect this malaise. Last summer, Sportingindex was offering a spread of 235-240 on the number of seats the Tories could gain at the next election (they won 166 in 2001). Now the spread has collapsed to just 198-206. However, my guess is that Labour’s lead is wobbly, like a man on stilts. The polls show there is a widespread feeling that Labour ministers - not just Tony Blair - are not to be trusted; that the war is a fiasco; that crime is rising; immigration is out of control; and that public services are chaotic and bad value for money. History also tells us that governments start to fall apart when they lose control of the public finances. Last month, Gordon Brown borrowed £9.4 billion, more than any other chancellor on record. The public are not stupid and sense there is a serious deficit: a recent poll by Populus found that 67 per cent believe Labour will put up taxes after the election.

If you think Labour is pretty awful and the Tories lack spine, you may be left with no choice but to vote Liberal Democrat. Of course, nobody expects them to form a government, and their bizarre policy platform shows worrying signs of multiple personality disorder. They are in favour of 50 per cent income tax for higher earners; joining the euro; congestion charging in London but not in Edinburgh; and as recently as 2002 half the front bench actually voted in favour of ID cards. But they do have the advantage of being neither Labour nor Tories.

Trefgarne goes on to suggest that if the Lib Dem spread price falls to 65-70 Commons seats then a buy might be a good bet. We are not so sure.

Latest General Election seat spreads from Spreadfair - the spreadbetting exchange.
LAB 351.5-352.7: CON 194-199: LIBD 68-71.5: SNP 5-6: PC 4-5: UKIP 0.6-1.1
The spreads are usually much narrower because Spreadfair combines the benefits of a betting exchange with a spread market. Their spreads are also much more market sensitive.

In order to defray some of Politicalbetting’s costs we have reached an agreement whereby we receive a commission on accounts that are opened through the site. We like the way that Spreadfair has a full range of party options though not, as yet, Respect. If you are opening a spread-betting account I would be grateful if you could do it through the site. Many thanks.

Mike Smithson

Victor Chandler offer 5/1 on Blunkett returning in 2005

A great price of 5/1 is available on David Blunkett returning to the Cabinet during 2005. The 5/1 from VC compares with just 7/4 on the same punt from Bet365 and we do not think it will stay at that level.

It ’s not often that two bookmakers offer such differing prices on the same market and, in our view, it is Chandlers which have got it marked wrongly. Get on now while it lasts.

If, as is likely, Tony Blair is returned at the General Election then big ministerial changes are expected and Blunkett could be re-introduced then. Certainly the chances must be better than 5/1.

In the past Blair has shown himself to be loyal to his political friends - just look at the “three times” returned Peter Mandelson.

A great value bet and great Christmas present.

The Guardian is running its Political Blog of the Year. Any support from site users would be very welcome.

Mike Smithson

Mike Smithson & Robert Smithson

Thanks to all our users and forum contributors for all you have done in the past nine months. The discussions are great and we’ve managed to create a community of activists and others interested in politics from almost the full gambit of UK parties where these matters can be discussed and debated in a calm non-confrontational manner. It all bodes well for the General Election campaign.

Good betting.

Can Blair play it both ways?

What’s going to be the electoral impact of the Government plan not to oppose the Countryside Alliance if it seeks an injunction delaying the ban on hunting?

Certainly the move is in line with the thinking of ministers when they tried to push the implementation to the other side of the General Election by seeking to insert a delaying clause. But seeking to do something in Parliament is completely different from what could be presented as “caving in” to the CA.

Is Tony Blair in danger of upsetting both sides? He won’t gain anything from the pro-hunt lobby for going along with this move and he might now be sacrificing the goodwill of the animal welfare groups.

The injunction should also take away the threat of serious protests during the General Election run-in which probably would have re-bounded on the pro-hunt lobby and reinforced support for the Government. It would have enabled ministers to have presented the CA as extremists thus underlining the need to have a ban and would have been a good issue to attack the Tories over their commitment to law and order.

There’s also the huge risk that an injunction by the courts against the implementation of any legislation does not look good for a government.

For the vast majority of voters hunting is not an issue that will determine whether and how they vote. But there are smallish, but nethertheless significant, groups who feel so passionately either side of the argument that it will be a vote-decider. This latest move reinforces the perception that Tony Blair is not happy with the new law thus, possibly, depriving him possibly of some of the benefit.

There’s also the down-side that for many of those who are strongly in favour of hunting the ban could be a vote-critical issue. The latest move is unlikely to make them less determined to turn-out and they are likely to go with the Tories rather than, say, UKIP.

Happy Christmas and thanks for all your support during the year. In the interests of my health (my family will kill me if I spend the entire holiday in front of the computer) there’ll only be a limited number of updates until the New Year.

The Guardian is running its Political Blog of the Year. Any support from site users would be very welcome.

Mike Smithson

Will Charles Kennedy put a smile on Michael Howard’s face

It’s said that Labour are going to campaign hard on the fact that if many of their supporters switch to the Lib Dems then the main beneficiary will be Michael Howard.

This is a tough one for Labour to get over particuarly as Charles Kennedy’s party will be seen to be pressing the Tories hard in such seats as Michael Howard’s Folkestone and all their rhetoric will be about them becoming the main party of opposition.

But the mathematics are correct - the more Labour supporters who switch to the Lib Dems the more Tory MPs there will be.

In a post yesterday Sean Fear observed: “If you try out predictions on Martin Baxter’s site, and do a straight switch from Labour to Lib Dem, with Conservatives unchanged, you’ll find the Conservatives gain 3-4 seats from Labour for each one they lose to the Lib Dems. “ The Baxter calculation is a simple mathematical formula that shows how many seats the parties get if you apply different percentages to what happened in 2001. This is based on a uniform national swing.

Doing the Sean Fear number crunching we get the following:-

Conservatives remaining constant at their 2001 vote share level of 32.7%
LAB 38.3% share of votes - LDs 19% = CON 176: LAB 389: LD 52 seats
LAB 37.3% share of votes - LDs 20% = CON 183: LAB 381: LD 52 seats
LAB 36.3% share of votes - LDs 21% = CON 186: LAB 373: LD 57 seats
LAB 35.3% share of votes - LDs 22% = CON 191: LAB 367: LD 58 seats
LAB 34.3% share of votes - LDs 23% = CON 201: LAB 356: LD 58 seats

The last calculation throws up of 27 extra Tory gains from Labour in comparison with the first line off-set by two Lib Dem gains from the Tories. All the changes are from Labour including 2 to the SNP and one to PC.

There is a lot wrong with the idea of a uniform national swing and we do not think it will produce the whopping majority envisaged for barely a third of the vote. It does not take into account the outcome of special targeting, regional variations, seat-specific issues and Martin Baxter has not yet produced a formula that would account for tactical vote unwind - a feature that many commentators believe might happen.

But the broad trend is there. A standstill Tory party will benefit much more from LAB-LD switching than the Lib Dems themselves.

The spreadbetting markets, meanwhile are unchanged. IG have LAB 348-356: CON 190-198: LD 69-73

Mike Smithson