Our best General Election Bets
March 13th, 2005
Although the main issue of which party will win most seats is almost a foregone conclusion there are a number of bets about where the chances of it happening are better, in our view, than the odds being quoted by the bookies.
Lib Dems to get more than 70 seats. Charles Kennedy’s party poll rating is a third to half better than it was at this time before the last election and all the experience is that they will pick up more during the campaign. The LDs have a great record of focussing resources on target seats and we’ve been impressed by recent comments of from people we believe are menbers of the party’s national campaign team on our forums. The best price on this is 6/4 with Tradesports - the Dublin betting exchange. Great value. Other Lib Dem seat prices can be found here.
Turnout to be 60%+. With the election looking tighter than last time and with a much higher level of rancour between the main parties we expect turnout to be more than the 59% of 2001. There’s also in many areas been a lot of work tidying up the electoral register reducing the overall number of names thus boosting the turnout proportion. Turnout prices have dropped to evens on six weeks ago when you could get more than 3/1 on 60% or more. A better bet is the 5/2 that available on Betfair on 65% or more. Good value for the price. IG Index’s spread is 58-60.
Tories to get more than 200 seats. This is the target that many commentators believe that Michael Howard needs to reach if he is to survive as leader. The Lynton Crosby Tory campaign has shown that it is more than a match for the once all-conquering Labour team and targets in excess of 200 do not seem out of reach. The spread prices have edged now to above this figure although they might drop back a little in response to Wednesday’s budget. Tradesports currently have 205+ at 11/4 which looks great value. This compares with 15/8 on Skybet and 10/11 with Bet365 on them getting 201 or more.
Tony Blair to go before Jan 1 2006. The 4/1 price covers a whole range of eventualities. His health, a coup in the party or even Labour not winning. Great value.
If you are betting on the election please do it through links on the site and quote Politicalbetting. We get commissions from some bookmakers and this goes towards the rising cost of keeping the site going. Many thanks.
© Mike Smithson 2005
MessageSpace Advertising
Based on those numbers above, we can therefore asses that the General Election result will be:
Conservatives 200 Labour 348 Liberal Democrats 70 Others 28
and the share of the vote will be:
Lab 37% Con 35% Lib Dem 23% Others 5%
Is May 5th a dead cert? What’s wrong with June?
I think it’s possible for the Conservatives to do well (200 + seats) or for the LibDems to get more than 70 seats, but can’t see both these outcomes at the same election.
If we look at the Conservative seat target list, nine of the top seventeen targets are LD held at present. Of the top seventeen LibDem target seats, thirteen are Conservative held.
Perhaps I’m missing something here, but it seems to me that if the Conservatives do well the LibDems will do poorly, and vice-versa.
Turnout - 60% plus does seem likely. The outcomes immediately preceding 2001 were 71, 77, 75, 72, 76, 72, 78, 72, 76, 77 and 78.
2001 in this light seems like a one-off.
Andrew 2. I sure hope that May 5th is a dead cert. I’m changing jobs and have arranged to have a couple of months off before starting the new one so I can spend even more time working on the site. An election after May 5th would really mess me about.
Do not understand why turnout will be up - voters are dying and the new voters cant be bothered (understandably in my view). The only flaw in this arguement might be postal votes - but I am relying on the Birmingham “trials” to stop the worst excesses
Icarus [5] - Sure, voters are dying and yes, new voters can’t be bothered - ’twas ever thus, wasn’t it? So what’s new? Last time it was so incredibly obvious to everyone that NuLab were going to win big the whole thing was a big yawn….. this time it’s incredibly obvious to everyone that NuLab is still going to win big - but this time there are far more people with a bit of an axe to grind about this issue or that issue and I think they will bother to show up this time round. Granted we’re anoraks on this site, but anecdotally, normal people seem to be talking about politics this year, including younger people.
59% in 2001 - how much lower can it go? My money’s where my mouth is - a big up bet at 60.
An election after May 5th would be a poor choice for Labour. The turnout would be awful (30%ish max) and Labour would do terribly, with all the press reporting it. It would give the tories (and Lib Dems to a lesser extent) a crucial pre election boost.
I still think 5th May. Calling the election soon after a spend-a-thon budget is usually a good move- and it involves Gordon Brown!
Marcchgale 3. I agree that it seems unlikely that both the Conservatives can do well at this next election. I reckoned that of the Lib/Dems 25 most targetable seats 22 are currently Conservative. I also agree that turnout is likely to be much higher. I’m sure that what happened last time was that many Labour voters just didn’t bother in safe seats because the result was such a certainty. I’m pretty sure this is why the pollsters underestimated the Tory vote. This time with a bigger turnout I would expect them to be pretty accurate.
(Should have read ‘both the Conservatives and Lib/Dems’)
Roger - I don’t think that the Tories getting 200 seats can be described as them “doing well”. They would have made a paltry 35 gains and still be 123 seats short of winning power. If all my bets come good - which I think will happen - then Labour would still have a very substantial majority.
3 - on a UNS Lab -> Lib both the Tories and the LDs can do well in the same election; Tories by coming through the middle in Lab/Con marginals, and LDs by squeezing further the Labour vote in Con/Lib marginals.
Mike [10] I can’t figure it - let’s say you’re right and both seat bets win. Tories 210, LibDems 80, Others 28. That leaves Labour with 328 - hardly a substantial majority. Where am I going wrong?
Well I’ve just had my first political bet on Tradesports. I bought the Tories for 205+ in a spirit of greed and blind optimism. It’s all a bit technical for the likes of me however. I’m not sure whether I’ve made an offer for someone else to accept or whether I’ve accepted someone else’s. I shouldn’t have had the Guinness earlier. Any tips on using Tradesports, Mike? (I did of course click on your link. I then clicked on Other when asked how I’d heard of them and entered politicalbetting.com - was this the right way to go about it?)
Off Message - what price did you do it at? Looking at the screen a bet on the Tories getting 205+ would have been at 27 - betting against 23.
Highly complicated at first but you soon get into it.
I think that this is a great bet.
Thanks for mentioning the site.
My bet details are below. Should I have entered 27 as the price rather than 23?
TORIES.SEATS.+205
Limit Buy 50 contracts Price 23.0
Tabman. But if the Lib/Dems take 30 extra seats and 25 of them are Tory, for the Tories to get even 200 seats will mean they have to take 60 off Labour. Quite an ‘ask’ (as Alan Hanson would say)
16 - that’s as may be but (i) even the most insane optimist over there wouldn;t thinkg we’ll get 30 seats and (ii) I haven;t donw the maths, but I’d be interested to see the majorities of the most vulnerable 60 Labour seats; IIRC most will be under 5000 votes.
I think a lot more scrutiny needs to be paid to the “LibDem boost”, not because it necessarily won’t happen (although some of the ‘boost’ in the past must have been due to inadequate polling methods not mostly now present) but because of its implications. A LibDem boost cannot exist in isolation - it must come at the expense of the other parties, and IMO the evidence suggests that in this election any boost (if it happens) is likely to be overwhelmingly to the detriment of Labour(when compared to current polling outcomes). So if you belueve in it then Labour could yet be looking at low 30%s. If you accept that possibility as a serious one then I don’t think you can continue to maintain Labour being the largest party as a “foregone conclusion”.
18 - au contraire; highly unlikely I’ll admit but there’s the 41% from the can’t be bothered party whose votes could transfer elsewhere.
Alex. Far be it to disagree with you. The evidence of the past is that a Lib Dem campaign boost comes from both sides, and tactical voting (which favoured Labour more than the Lib Dems) has taken votes away from them. The campaign boost normally appears to come as the Lib Dems get the exposure that is normally denied to them. This appears to still be in operation - when the Lib Dems had their conference in October they hit 26% with the Tories down to about 27%.
OM 15. The Tradesport system is new to me. I think you are OK - but click on the live help tab and ask them.
You are buying the Tories at 205+ at 23. If they do it you get 100 back.
Sorry - slightly out - but point still made
4th Oct 35/28/25 Pop
10th Oct 39/30/23 ICM
Sorry - showing that high LD can come from both sides.
is there anywhere you can get odds on specific constituencies?
Jane - the bookies are very wary about individual seat markets at this stage because they figure that those who want to bet know mored about it than they do.
I think we will see them emerge nearer the big day on the most interesting seats.
Roger [16] and Alex [18] are right - a LibDem boost cannot occur in isolation. It doesn’t matter how many votes they pick up from the non-voters of 2001 - it’s seats that matter and if the LibDems get 80+ that necessarily means the Tories will lose seats to them and so will have to impact into more solid Labour majorities elsewhere to make serious gains to take them over 200.
I’m not sure Graham. A look at the data from Populus using the link from this site seems to show incredibly well that the Lib boost came from labour. But it’s a bit difficult looking at these things on a PDA!
There are certainly a few seats that could be interesting - Bassetlaw for one.
Alex. If you look at http://www.mori.com/polls/trends/voting-allpub.shtml it seems that the Lib Dems have variously taken ‘votes’ off of both over the past year or so. The noticeable fact is that the Tories have had a lot of coverage recently and taken a couple of % off the Lib Dems and Lab have solidified their position - if the Lib Dems get their boost it will probably come from both sides.
Tabman at 17:
60th most vulnerable Labour seat (according to http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/e01/labmajelec.htm )
is Vale of Glamorgan with a 4700 majority.
Note that there are about 3 Scottish seats above it (so they’ll be different under the new boundaries), but yes, 5000 is about right.
29 - It’s debatelable. I read it as the Tories haven’t moved for a year(rogue polls notwithstanding). Their standard deviation is within the margin of error. Any significant moves have been Lib to Lab and vice versa.
MS at 21
Thanks. The Live help was good. I cancelled my first bet and then redid it at 27.5 and it was immediately matched. So for the first time I’ve put my money where my mouth is.
Off Message [32] Congratulations! I don’t think there’s many of us on this site actually risking their hard-earned on an election punt, at this stage anyway. I’ve just had yet another £100 on a buy of turnout at 60%. And I’ve booked May 5th 6th and 7th off from work so I can drink myself into a stupor if it all goes horribly wrong!
With these “position” bets (or whatever they are called) you can sell at any time (either to cash a profit or limit a loss) so when you bet doesn’t really matter - you don’t have to wait until the end.
hi folks. lurking for a while, but first post. re Marchgale[33 can I suggest that your need for 5th, 6th, and 7th is that you spend 5th all day multiple voting, 6th recovering, and 7th celebrating. BTW practising LibDem and Westmorland & Lonesdale will be very, very interesting.
Andy 30 - I’ve just put this list of Labour’s marginals up as a link.
OM & Marchdale - I wish you well with your bets. On Friday I put a lot on the turnout being more than 65% with Betfair at about 3/1. The great thing with betting exchanges is that if the prices tighten you can lay part of your original bet to cover, say, your original stake and you are certain not to lose any money.
When the ICM poll came out last month I bet on the Tories on Betfair at just under 10/1. I laid a week or so later at about 8/1 effectively “selling” the bet at a profit.
The odd thing about that list of Labour marginals is that Cardiff doesn’t appear to have a University!
30. As you go down the list it seems that the more solid the majority the lower the turnout. I would be interested to know if the same is true of Conservative held seats. If not it would suggest that in 2001 Labour voters didn’t bother to vote where it wasn’t necessary and this could explain the pollsters errors.
Roger at 38: Yes, I’ve always thought this (differential turnout in marginals) was part of the explanation of the discrepancy between the polls and the result in 2001 (and probably 1997 too). I do on balance expect higher turnout nationally this time, since it’s less clear where the marginals are.
A good bet still strikes me as a spread bet on UKIP getting 0 seats -I really cannot see them getting a single one, or even close. The spread is currently 0.3-0.8. Obviously if they get 20 seats you stand to lose lots, but…
For what it’s worth, we canvassed a huge estate in Stapleford yesterday, where the Guardian had most of its findings, and results were surprisingly good. As usual, looking only at those who we’ve canvassed in previous elections, so as to give a comparison: we were running above our 2001 level, with lots of requests for posters too.
Nick
Nick 39. Best of luck with the campaign Nick - my heart goes out to all those defending marginal seats of whatever party - and what a perilous life it is for a professional politician. Rest assured that in the early hours of May 6th many from the site will be looking out for the Broxtowe result.
Having said that the national outcome I want to see is for the warmonger to have his wings clipped.
Although I think Nick is right re UKIP slamming them out at 0.3 doesn’t exactly meet the risk reward criteria - suppose some huge row about the rebate breaks out during the campaign, or the election is postponed and held on the same day as the referendum. Several changes of underwear might be required!
Can someone remind me where the odds on Folkestone & Hythe majority are being offered.
Re 38. Are you sure Mr Palmer i agree one issue one man bands don’t form Govt, on the other hand Messrs Bell, And Taylor both suprised everyone. If the Constituencies want a celebrity i for one would be unsurprised to see both Kilroy and “Gorgeous!” George Galloway at Westminster after the next Election.
Where are the Lib Dems going to win all of these seats from Labour from? Of Labour’s 100 most marginal seats, only 5 have the Lib Dems in second place.
On looking even further down the list, only 13 of the top 200 most marginal seats have the LDs in second. And the 13th has a majority of over 10,000! I really don’t think the LDs will be taking too many seats from Labour, regardless of Iraq, tuition fees or anything else.
44. I agree. I don’t see the Libdems winning more than 5 (maybe 6 in an very good night for them) seats from Labour.
Tony, you don;t have to come from second place to win a seat if the vote is swapping Lab - Lib. Look at Brent East and Leicester South.
Do you think the attacks on Michael Howard by Labour including two million DVDs will help the Liberal Democrats more than it will help Labour?
47. There are very few seats where the LDs could come from 3rd to win at the next GE. Falmouth & Camborne, Wantage and Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweedale are the only ones I can think of offhand, and all three are very long shots.
Big LD advances in places where thay have had recent local govt success, such as Watford and Bolton West would most likely hand these seats to the Conservatives.
DVDs Printz???
Wantage and Dumfriesshire - that’s a big seat!!
How about Leeds NW?
I see from the Beeb that Jonathan Sayeed is now actually not going to restand because of “ill health”. Tour guiding can be so terribly stressful. Relief all round from us Tory posters.
Isn’t the biggest effect of the Lib Dems that they will get most of the protest vote against Labour over war and tuition fees etc and a realisation that liberal Democrats are now the most left party?
Their vote will rise into to 20s mainly at at the detriment of Labour, but rather than winning many seats they will help Tories win a great number of seats.
Say for example if Tories go up 3 points from last time and Lib Dems up anything over 3 points at Labour’s expense that would put the Tories ahead. In many seats the Tories can win even if their vote doesn’t rise, simply by disgruntled Labour voters switching to Lib Dem.
Yes the typical pattern of Labour falling and Liberal Democrats rising in the campaign may not be so this time, but there seems to be more reason now than in the last election for that to happen seeing as so many people are now angry with Labour.
52 - Very good news.
51. Not as big as those other two transnational constituencies - South Holland and the Deepings, and Boston and Skegness
.
The Howard DVD story was in the Sunday Mirror. Howards Ways in Horror Tory DVD
Re. 54 and 52, Boateng is standing down to become High Commissioner to South Africa. As with Mowlam last time, though, he’ll continue in his Cabinet post till the General Election. Today Brent South, tomorrow Pretoria! (if, of course, Labour wins).
No great loss, anyway - not only do I still remember his blustering performance at the 02 Labour Party conference (which earned him jeering and slow handclapping), but also an appalling performance by him on Any Questions in 99.
47 - the two seats you mention were both by-elections, and the Lib Dems have an excellent by-election machine which relies on bussing in supporters from around the country and has led to many spectacular gains.
Their target seat strategy not withstanding, that is not possible during a General Election and explains why the LDs often lose by-election gains at the next GE (though they have been better at hanging on to such seats in more recent GEs).
The Grauniad alleges to-day that not one Tory MP can be found who thinks they’ll win the next General Election. Come on you Tories here, post a link that disproves them!
If it’s in the Grauniad it must be true! Of course, as a full 8% of Guardian readers vote Tory (Source: MORI 2001), the views of the Guardian are completely irrelevant to the vast majority of current or potential Tory voters…..
We have reached a similar conclusion on previous threads. The LD’s in my view will win a higher percentage of the vote with support piling up in labour seats but they will lose seats to Conservatives as the marginals they gained in 97 and 01 are lost.
LD posters will howl and argue, but it is the curse of the third party to always be the forst victim in the change of national sentiment and always has been.
LD’s should take comfort though because in previous similar situations (1951, 1970, 1979) they had far fewer seats to begin with. If they end up with 35 they are well placed to add more Labour seats in 2009/10 - unless they unravel before then by going into a Lib Lab pact again…
Marcus,
I agree, but I think they will be very unlikely to go as low as 35. 45 seems more likely.
Whether they can prosper in 2009/10 seems to me to depend on how quick the young guns can persuade the rest of the party that they need to be the urban part of a right-wing revival (after all the Tories are still very weak in many urban areas).
61 - Pregethwr, whilst hesitating to call it right wing I’m in agreement on your position on 2009/10. Re seats this time, well we’ll see, but my own experience of working in a target seat leads me to think that we’ll be u lucky not to make net gains overall.
62 - agree on terminology, but the smaller-state wing of the LDs needs to either do some very pointed reclaiming of the word “liberal” or find something more congenial.
My unscientific guess on seats would be 60-62.
IA - The MP for Woodspring said on Saturday morning “Michael Howard will be that Prime Minister. And with your help we will deliver a government for Britain that really believes in Britain”
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=120501
Yeah. Just like he went out with Natalie Imbruglia
You could argue, though, that even if Tory MPs are pessimistic, they are poorly placed to judge, since they hold so few of the real bellwether marginals.
The betting would suggest that people are sceptical about the LDs hopes of big gains. When BlueSq first started offering odds on numbers of seats (mid-Feb), I snapped up the LDs to be on 67 or less at 13-8. It is now 10-11 favourite.
Sorry, Andy [65] - Liam Fox is saying that Michael Howard will be the PM Britain needs (well, that’s what he thinks, anyway, as he’s perfectly entitled to) but he stops short of saying that the Tories are going to win. Keep trying, guys, you want to make the Grauniad grovel, don’t you?
Re. 60- Marcus am not a Lib Dem poster but your post does sound like wishful thinking, there is little evidence for a likely fall in LD seat numbers. Local By-elections in LD held areas have not suggested a big shift to the Conservatives or indeed one the other way and I think the smart money is still on small net gains from both the Conservatives and Labour in May.
Sarah J - the point is its not the Guardian’s opinion (BTW I assume the 8% of Guardian Tory readers are checking out the opposition!) -but the opinion of Tory MPs that they are reporting.
How many Tory MPs do you think think the Tories can win? Have any had a bet?
I rather suspect Marcus might be in the sole example of an area where the Tories are making local gains from the LDs!
69 - I definitely remember IDS putting some money (100 pounds?) on a Tory Victory.
Jon @ 70, I have already named 12 Libdem seats on another thread that I am fairly sure we will win 10 of, and that doesn’t include Marcus. (or Rik….)
72 - and we WILL be winning Sutton & Cheam!
60 61 - I can’t work out what evidence there is that the LDs are likely to lose 10 or more seats back to the Tories. The polls compared to this point four years ago show a national swing from the Tories to the LDs. Even if the Tories are able to win the kind of swings they won on Taunton & Isle of Wight last time in the most vulnerable LD seats they will not win more than 10 back - and on the evidence of last time they won’t manage even that.
Neil, do you not worry that the Lib Dems, of all parties, are most vulnerable to an increase in turnout?
Alex - the Lib Dems benefit when the turnout rise in their target seats. One of the factors in the Isle of Wight loss last time was the turnout dropping. I guess it might harm them in Labour targets where a big Labour stay at home would be needed for them to win.
Really? In which seats did turnout rise at the last election?
75. Why would an increase in turnout hit the Lib Dems ? They have a smaller “core” vote than either Labour or the Conservatives. So more uncommitted or undecided voters turning out should help the Lib Dems.
It’s a good rule of thumb
if you’re attacking, agood turnout is helpful - if you’re defending, a poor turnout is good.
I’m not sure. But here’s an argument. 4 major factors define the current parliamentary Situation vis a vis 1992. Large numbers of disillusioned Tories ‘disappearing’ , similarly disillusioned Labour, a major switch Tory to Lab and tactical voting. Clearly in these circumstances the Libs have not suffered from low turnouts, indeed relatively they have prospered, so it is not unreasonable to think a reverse of this process, triggered perhaps by a very polarised election with strong political positions being taken by the two main parties drawing their supporters back, could harm the Lib Dems in turn.
Anyone have details of the front page newspaper poll ‘Tories surge as Labour lead slashed in half, just caught headline on newsnight newspaper review. Cut to 5% lead according to Paxman. Didn’t catch which newspaper or polling co. though.
Assuming that it is purely a Tory surge at Labour’s expense that would be 38/33/20 - but I am guessing now - could be 39/34/19 of course
Or even 40/35/18
My grasp of maths astounds me 
Funny that the Independent suddenly seem to have found some faith in their pollsters once they’ve given them a story (of sorts )
Presumably it’s the NOP poll.
Have you found out the results yet alex?
Same question to you Sean?
Wouldn’t think it would be the NOP poll, because they mentioned halving the Labour lead and that the new lead was 5%. Wasn’t the last NOP poll showing a 2% (or it may have been 3%) Labour lead?
Graham - I assume since it’s the Independent that it is NOP.39/34/19 gives “others”8 whilst 40/35/18 gives “others” 7.I’m hoping “others” will be 9 - what readings give this please?
No it’s not on their website. I think Paxman said NOP
Well it’s over to the Sky News newspaper review in 4 minutes for the definitive answer then…
I’ve no details at all. However, NOP is the only pollster recently to give Labour a double-digt lead.
Grant - but knowing the way in which papers work they could be comparing the NOP poll with the Communicate poll the IoS had in Feb, which had 40/32/20
Yes. Sean 42/30/18. So if they are saying 5% gap - that would be 38/33/18 (assuming that the Lib Dems have stayed still - which isn’t huge news.
Are those the actual figures then, Graham?
The Catholic Church have apparently come out for the Tories. And Sandra Howard’s car has been vandalised.
No. I am just guessing based on what NOP got in Feb - it could be 39/34/17 or 37/32/19. I don’t know.
97 - Right, thanks.
Those who access this site in slightly (hic) tired ‘n emotional mode are rewarded. The Indy has just published the NOP poll as their lead story. The headline figures are Labour on 39 per cent, the Tories on 34 per cent and the Liberal Democrats on 19 per cent.
Hmm. Graham was pretty close…but if the Tories are indeed advancing to 34% we have to ask our hitherto sceptical sage whether the ‘mo’ might just be beginning to be with them…??
PS The link to the Independent is http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=620198
The comments about the tories not picking up lib dem seats are quite viable. Nevertheless I would be extremely surprised if they did not pick up English seats held by the Labour party on less than 4.5% swing which would still mean in the area of 40-50 seats, the likes of Wimbledon, Stroud, Stourbridge, Wolverhampton SW for instance.
Additionally the tories have lost pretty much as many seats as they can to the Lib Dems; in the shires and the South West, if the Lib Dems do take any tory seats it will not be more than a couple. The Lib Dems biggest gains are likely to be in the North off the Labour party where they now control many previously Labour local authorities.
Re: Lorcan at 49.
In Shrewsbury the previously Labour MP has swapped to the distant 3rd Lib Dems. That will be interesting to watch!
Midlander (102) said:
“Additionally the tories have lost pretty much as many seats as they can to the Lib Dems; in the shires and the South West, if the Lib Dems do take any tory seats it will not be more than a couple.”
Presumably (mutandis mutatis) that is what the Liberals were saying in the twenties and thirties…..
So in the not too distant future (twenty years or so), the Tories will be reduced to 5 MPs………
Which is the dodgy pollster, that takes into account only those who say that they are 100% certain to vote (ie principally Tory voters)? Was it this one?
It’s Mori and you’re using a pretty broad definition of ‘ dodgy’. Their under lying figures are all available - you interpret them how you wish.
John (104) “So in the not too distant future (twenty years or so), the Tories will be reduced to 5 MPs……… ”
As a gambler would you bet on that? I know I would be a lot happier betting that the tories dont lose more than a couple to the Lib Dems this time round.
cheap nasacort…
cheap nasacort was at cheap nasacort and up to his eyes in rewinding a cheap nasacort that swaggered spoilsport. For some time I clung to the site-plan that he might come with us ; but the civilisers all sur it woul…