politicalbetting.com

Is he right to push a change on which he could be beaten?

Ever since he was elected as leader critics have argued that David Cameron needs to do more than have smart presentation to prove to the electorate that the Tory party has changed. For this, like Tony Blair with Clause Four in the mid-1990s, Cameron has needed an issue on which he can campaign.

Today he is to announce moves that could prove to be highly controversial and on which he could conceivably be beaten - he wants to interfere with the way local Tory parties choose their candidates to make sure that more women are being considered.

For as we saw with the Bromley by-election candidate selection local Tory associations have a huge amount of autonomy on this issue and taking this away is not going to come easily. The culture of the party throughout the country is not one that is ready to accept encroachments that many will see as being pushed for politically correct reasons.

The Tories desperately want to return to power - but would giving up part of local party powers be a price that many would regard as a step too far?

Today’s Cameron plan will strip grassroots members of the final say on who should be their candidate and on the face of it looks like a highly dangerous road for the leader to go down. But Cameron appears determined to move from a system that results in just 10% of his party MPs being female.

To my mind the moves do two things: they will divert the focus from accusations that Cameron is policy-lite and they will set the media agenda as we move into the conference season. The fact that defeat is possible will only add to the interest.

In one sense I don’t think that Cameron is risking much. If he fails to get his changes at least he will have proved to the world - and women voters in particular - that this is a battle that he is willing to fight. Women know how tough it is breaking down the barriers and a defeat at the first hurdle would reinforce his victory when that eventually comes.

Also the longer the argument on female candidates goes on the less he will be challenged on other things. This is the classic Blair device - so for Cameron it could be Win Win.

One of the interesting polling moves since Cameron was elected has been the proportion of women who now say they support the party. In poll after poll the female segment is proving to be much more Tory than the male one. This is only returning to how things used to be. Until Blair’s victory in 1997 women were much more Tory inclined than men.

Mike Smithson

Home Secretary’s “positive impression” rating up 15% in eleven days

The latest YouGov BrandIndex data published on the UK Polling Report site shows a massive boost for the Home Secretary, John Reid (GREEN) since he came to prominence over his handling of the alleged terror plots.

As can be seen from the chart he is well ahead of his potential Labour leadership rival, Gordon Brown (BROWN) and now enjoys poll ratings ahead of the Tory leader, David Cameron (BLUE), whose figures continue to slip.

It should be noted that these are based on whether respondents have a “positive impression” of the named politician and are not the “good job - bad job” figures that YouGov has been providing PBC with over the past few weeks.

These are based on a five day rolling average of surveys of 600 people each day. The sample size in therefore 3,000.

Although these figures should be treated with great caution they are likely to have the effect of helping John Reid establish a position where he could challenge Gordon Brown.

What we really need are proper vote intention figures with Brown and Reid named alongside Cameron and Campbell. Let’s hope that ICM and Populus, due out in the next couple of weeks, will ask those questions.

My strong view is that if Reid is polling better on such a measure against the Chancellor then he would have a serious chance of challenging for the leadership. Labour wants a winner and will be influenced by the polls.

The challenge for Reid is maintaining this position because as many ex-Home Secretaries can vouch - the job is not normally good for a career.

In the betting the best Brown price has eased a touch to 0.46/1.

Mike Smithson

Brown has 7% lead on Cameron on being a “capable PM”

The Sunday Times this morning features a Mori poll on immigration and leader ratings but without a voting intention question and without using the measures other pollsters employ to ensure that their samples are politically representative.

The most significant finding is that 47% of those surveyed think that Tony Blair should go immediately with 56% wanting him out before the end of the year. This is by far the highest rating on this question in any opinion poll and comes only a few days before the Prime Minister returns from his summer holiday.

To the question “Who do you think would make the most capable Prime Minister –Gordon Brown, David Cameron or Menzies Campbell?” these were the shares with changes on March when the question was asked last time using a similar methodology. Brown 31 (-4): Cameron 24 (-2): Campbell 11 (+2)

Regular visitors will know that whenever Mori produce a poll, whatever it is saying, I always give a health warning about the firm’s methodology.

For in all phone surveys there is a proven tendency to grossly over represent Labour because, for whatever reason, party supporters are much more likely to take part in surveys than supporters of other parties.

Thus ICM and Populus find that on average the number of poll respondents saying they voted Labour at the last election is about quarter more than actually did so and make adjustments for sample distortion. Mori don’t and their figures should be treated accordingly.

Normally with voting intention polls, which this isn’t, Mori filters its results by only including those who say they are “certain to vote” in its headline figures. So even that control does not apply here.

To give an idea of the scale of potential distortion a Mori poll for the FT just four days before the May 2005 General Election reported a Labour lead of 15%. The turnout filter cut that back to 10%. At the election Labour’s margin was 3%. Mori’s final election poll employed different methodologies and so cannot be compared.

Within the next week or so we should see the August surveys from ICM and YouGov - both of which employ robust techniques to avoid sample bias. Wait for them and ignore Mori.

In the betting on Blair’s departure the 2006 price is 10/3 with current odds of 5.4/1 on a final quarter departure.

Mike Smithson

The Independent reports left-wing moves to press for an election

A report by Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor of the Independent, this morning says that “..demands for Tony Blair to quit over his support for US President George W Bush in the Middle East are to be taken to Labour’s annual conference next month in a direct challenge to his leadership by left-wing Labour campaigners.”

He says that all constituency Labour parties are being sent an emergency resolution calling for a leadership election within two months of the conference. What gives the move some force is that behind it are leaders of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, who successfully backed four candidates to the party’s NEC.

Among those on their list was Walter Wolfgang - the 82 year old who was ejected from last year’s conference after heckling Jack Straw.

Whether this will gather any momentum is hard to say but in the past fortnight the tempo has clearly moved up a gear as a result of the Prime Minister’s position on Lebanon. An indication of the change is the way John Prescott’s reported use of the word “crap” about George Bush has been well received within the party.

Those campaigning against Blair are said to want to provide a spur to Gordon Brown to force the Prime Minister out. An NEC member is quoted as saying “So far, Gordon has been too afraid to strike. He has got to demonstrate that he is ready for the leadership by helping the party to get rid of Blair.”

Whatever the pressure it’s still very hard to see the Chancellor doing anything other than maintain his cautious approach.

The element that’s still in the background for Blair is the cash for peerages police investigation. That’s very much out of his control but it hasn’t gone away. What would be the impact of the police interviewing him on top of the current discontent in parts of his party?

I still think think that the 6.2/1 on Blair going in the final quarter of 2006 is a good value bet.

Mike Smithson

How London Voted on May 5th

I have now finished working out how each of the new constituencies voted in May’s local elections. This is a useful exercise, as the new boundaries will almost certainly be in force at the time of the next election. As each of the three main parties contested the vast majority of London’s council seats, it is quite easy to work out the results by constituency. In each case, I have taken the highest vote achieved by each party’s candidate in each ward.

Had these results been repeated in a general election, the Conservatives would have won 35 seats (a gain of 14), Labour 28 (a loss of 16) , the Liberal Democrats 9 (a gain of 2), and Others 1 (Respect would have lost Bethnal Green and Bow, but freakishly, Residents would have won Upminster and Hornchurch).

The mean vote share won by the parties across all 73 constituencies was Conservative 34.7%, Labour 28.6%, Liberal Democrat 20.5%, and Others 16.4%.

There are striking disparities in party support across London. Labour’s support ranged from 5% in Sutton and Cheam to 50% in Camberwell and Peckham. Liberal Democrat support ranged from 1% in Dagenham and Rainham to 48% in Hornsey and Wood Green. Conservative support ranged from 9% in Islington North to 67% in Beckenham.

Comparing the position with 1992, Conservative support remains rock-solid in outer suburbia. In Chipping Barnet, they led Labour by 24%; in Ilford North by 23%; in Uxbridge & South Ruislip by 30%. Conservative support is now almost back to its 1992 level in Metroland, with leads of 15% over Labour in Harrow East, and Finchley, and smaller leads in Harrow West, Brent North (both on much less favourable boundaries than in 1992) , Hendon and Ealing North. Conservative support has strengthened in parts of Inner London, leading Labour by 19% in Westminster North, and 4% in Hammersmith, for example.

But Conservative support has collapsed in much of inner suburbia – as low as 14% in Streatham, and just 12% in Hornsey and Wood Green (over 25% down on 1992), and far behind Labour now in seats like Edmonton, Mitcham and Morden, and Croydon North.

By contrast, inner suburbia has seen the strongest improvement in Labour’s position (with the exceptions of Lewisham East and Lewisham West & Penge, and Hornsey and Wood Green). The East End remains Labour’s strongest area (but with strong challenges now from Respect in Newham and Tower Hamlets, the Green Party in Hackney, and the British National Party in Barking and Dagenham). Labour support has now fallen back in outer suburbia to its level of 1992, and is in sharp decline in Metroland.

The Liberal Democrats have gained few votes since 1992, but have targeted very effectively. Back in 1992, they only had one London MP, Simon Hughes. On these results, they would have lost two seats to the Conservatives (Sutton and Cheam, Richmond Park) but gained four from Labour (Islington South, both Lewishams, and Hampstead and Kilburn, where Labour fell into a poor third place).

The Greens polled well across Leftward-leaning constituencies. In Deptford, they won 26%, of the vote, 24% in Hackney North, 20% in Islington North, and 18% in Islington North. Their vote share reached 12% or more in 16 constituencies.

Respect polled well in Tower Hamlets and Newham, and a high profile candidate may succeed in holding Bethnal Green and Bow for them. Margaret Hodge is certainly in trouble in Barking, where the BNP won 23% of the vote, despite not contesting half the wards (and UKIP won a further 14%). Residents polled strongly in Havering and Brentford & Isleworth, and Save Chase Farm won a remarkable 26% to come second in Enfield North.

Last night saw just three by-elections:-

Enfield LBC: Turkey Street – Conservative 877, Labour 874, UKIP 174, Save Chase Farm 133, Lib Dem 77, Green 51. Conservative Hold. This was a rare excellent performance by Labour in a London by-election. Clearly, voters do not approve of councillors who resign their seats just three months after being elected, and UKIP also hurt the Conservatives. The collapse in support for Save Chase Farm (who won 1186 votes last time) suggests their vote in May was a flash in the pan.
Caradon DC: St. Cleer and St. Neotts: Lib Dem 519, Conservative 363. Lib Dem hold.
Highlands SUA: Inverness. Lib Dem 514, Independent 263, SNP 212, Labour 108, Conservative 49, Independent 26. Lib Dem gain from Independent.

I shall e-mail my constituency analysis to anyone who wants it.

Sean Fear is a London Tory activist and regular contributor to PBC.

At what stage is it worth betting on the Chancellor?

The above chart shows the best betting price available on Gordon Brown to be the next Labour leader shown as an implied probability.

This morning on the Betfair betting exchange you could get 0.44/1 - which for those less familiar with betting prices means that an investment of £100 would produce a profit of £44 on top of getting your stake back if he made it.

So is that good value given that the Labour Leadership contest must be getting closer?

For those who argue that he’s an absolute certainty then the only risk is the timing. You might have to wait a year or so for the contest so your money would be locked up but there would be little risk. I don’t take that view.

We last discussed this in June when somebody wrote to me asking whether he should tie part of the lump sum from his pension up in betting on “the near certainty of a Brown victory”. At the time the price was 0.38/1 - so a £100 bet would produce a £38 profit.

The general consensus then was that it wasn’t worth the risk and as the chart shows there has been an easing in the Brown position over the past two months. So the mood on the site was correct and if this man had waited to put his £10,000 on he would have got much better value. My understanding is that he has kept his cash in the building society.

For months I have taken the view that the certainty of a Brown victory was less than the betting odds - if only for the great Harold Macmillan dictum “Events Dear Boy - Events” the quotation, attributable to the former Tory PM regarding the thwarting of best intentions.

I bet put money on Brown at the start of the year when the price was at just under 0.5/1 and I got out of the bet when it tightened to 0.4/1 leaving me with a little profit at no risk should Gordon end up doing it.

I think that there is going to be a contest and Brown will not get his hoped for coronation. Provided he’s facing a serious challenger there will be a further easing of the price and, maybe, 0.7/1 would prove tempting.

Mike Smithson