Have the markets got the General Election wrong?
February 13th, 2007
What’s the basis of the Tories being favourites?
The chart shows the changing prices on the Tories and Labour winning most seats at the next general election. As can be seen Labour was seen by punters as being in a very strong position and was favourite in the betting right until May-June of last year.
The Tory sentiment reached its peak at the end of October and since then the prices have got much closer. This morning you can get 1.18/1 against Labour while the Tories are at 0.88/1.
This is an odd market because it is driven by punters ready to lock their money up over considerable period and even now you could have to wait well over three years to pick up any winnings
But what is really wrong about the market are the prices themselves. Surely both parties should be at about evens?
Meanwhile there’s a good piece by Anthony Wells on UK PollingReport about the dangers of making comparisons with what the polls were doing in the pre-1997 general election period when Labour chalked up margins of 40%. The essence of his article is that polling has advanced a lot in the past decade and a half and those mega figures simply cannot be compared with what happens today.
Whenever people tell me that governments always recover as we get closer to elections I respond by saying that a lot of that was probably a product of poor polling techniques that over-stated Labour.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I think the relative position of Lab and Con is about right based on the polls. As you say polling techniques are better but the naive forecasts ignore possible tactical vote unwind which I would expect - if the Tories really do lead by 5% they will probably do a lot better than expected.
I don’t expect that lead to happen because I don’t actually think Cameron is very good, but I could be proved completely wrong on that.
I read somewhere that the betting markets, provided that they are reasonably liquid, are a better statistical indication of outcome than the opinion polls.
With 16% or so ‘Other’ returns in polls, there is a large number of people who say they will vote for one of the smaller partes but who will not get the chance at the election because theose parties might not stand in their seats. Also, there is a tendency to knock Labour in safe opinion polling that will melt away come making a real choice at the polls. I would always add circa 3& to any Labour poll and remove 1% each from tories, libs and others. I do not beleive the pollsters can take this into effect.
Because the Tories won’t need anything like a 6% lead. Labour are shedding support in all the wrong, and the Tories are gaining in all the right, places.
2 - because betting markets contain more information. They take into account the opinion polls, and other factors, ergo theoretically better indicator. Opinion polls also can, by definition, only tell you the situation as it is now (they are not a predictive tool for 3 years away) whereas betting markets, by definition, do the opposite.
3 - “I would always add circa 3& to any Labour poll and remove 1% each from tories, libs” - not an approach that has any justification in past experience.
4 - *correction
Because the Tories won’t need anything like a 6% lead. Not if Labour are shedding support in all the wrong, and the Tories are gaining in all the right, places.
2. That may well be true. A good opinion poll only tells you what the situation is now; the betting markets tell you what people who are prepared to risk their own money judge that the situation will be come polling day. If people are prepared to risk money, then they are likely to have some confidence in their judgement for the dynamics of politics between the present and the election. But it’s an important point about liquidity and like any other prediction, it can be wrong.
Which brings us back on topic. If we assume about 90 ‘other’ MPs (eg 60 Lib Dem, 18 NI, 10 SNP/PC, 2 others), that implies that Labout or the Conervatives will need about 280 seats to be the largest party. If the Lib Dems lose a few more, that pushes up the barrier, and as it will be the Conservatives winning seats on the night in this sort of scenario, the Lib Dem losses would be to the Tories.
So for a bet on the Conservatives to pay off, the party will need to gain in the region of 85-90 seats. That is the real target - and is not an easy ask when you look at where the seats in question are.
I think these polls are amusing at the moment - A choice between the 2 main parties of Labour currently under a leader who will not be there in 7 months time against a conservative party with very few delcared policies.
The way I call it is that the Labour party is as high as they are in the polls only because of Tony Blair. I like TB, he may be a crook but a charismatic crook. Gordon Brown however is some dreadful, grey, ‘billions’, dullard. The fact that he is scottish is not a factor for me, but may be for others.
So when GB takes over I can see the polls slipping after an initial bounce
O/T French elections update : first poll taken after Royal’s speech on Sunday
IFOP for Paris-Match (poll taken monday, to be published on thursday but leaked to press agencies)
first round
Sarkozy 33.5 (+2.5)
Royal 26 (-1.5)
Bayrou 14 (+3)
Le Pen 10 (-3)
second round
Sarkozy 54 (+2)
Royal 46 (-2)
Update of my average of the 6 pollsters (BVA, CSA, TNS-Sofres, LH2, Ipsos, IFOP)
first round
Sarkozy 32.75 Royal 26.5 Bayrou 13.33 Le Pen 12.33
second round
Sarkozy 53.15
Royal 46.85
So, no bounce for Royal for the moment… this is very bad news after all the hype surrounding her “real” entry into the campaign.
Before Sarkozy’s opening of his campaign (14 january), the run-off polls with Royal were evenly split. Since then, he has been the predicted winner in 17 polls.
The Royal camp was hoping to reverse the trend. We will have to wait to know if today’s poll hasn’t picked correctly this new trend or if it simply does not exist.
re 3. where do you get the 16% “others” from? The current range from the latest polls for “others” is 7% with Ipsos-Mori to 14% with Populus.
http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention/
I do not quite follow your assertion that you should add 3% to any Labour polling total and deduct 1% from each of the Tories or Lib Dems,
I am happy to wager you £1,000 that that will not happen in a General Election.
I have read the comments on this site with some bemusement over the past few months. It appears to me that there are a group of Tory-leaning posters who are in complete denial that the party is not doing as well as it should and is just not in a postition to win the next election.
I have long believed that Labour will win the next election - despite, not becuase of, Brown.
Although there is a large dose of annoyance with the government, there just isn’t the coalition around the Tories that Labour achieved in 1997.
First of all we should remember that the Tories have less seats than Labour had after the disaster of 83. No one seriously thought, that Labour would get back to power from that position, with ‘one mighty heave’. it just wasn’t credible then; it isn’t credible for the Tories to think they can do it at the next GE. All sorts of weird and wonderful scenarios and statistical fiddling are being produced to convince people that it is possible, I don’t believe it is. As for the cricisms of Brown being dull having no charisma etc. the Australian Labor Party said the same about John Howard, think they’ve lived to regret ever saying it!
11 -
Doesn’t the fact that we now have so few people (relatively speaking) actually bothering to vote have an effect on polling? Ten or twenty years ago, when turnouts were 70-80%, that’s a third more people voting than in the last two elections.
Differential turnout seems to be the key, and can that be measured accurately?
7 The trouble with that thesis is that this far out no serious better will place serious money on the outcome of the next GE . Those placing money on Betfair at the moment are generally staunch party supporters with a biased viewpoint placing a small bet based more on faith than judgement .
TB is streets ahead of any other politician. In terms of political nous and ability, if there were a scale where TB was 100, both DC and GB would be around 50. Exactly where is currently irrelevant; all we know, and all we need to know, is that TB is out in front by a country mile.
But when TB steps down, it will matter hugely. Will GB be 60 and DC be 40? Or vice-versa? Neither looks sure-footed at the moment, but that perception is sure to change.
Are the betfair odds of the parties at 0.82 and 1.18 out of line? Not for me, but feel free….
6 “Because the Tories won’t need anything like a 6% lead. Not if Labour are shedding support in all the wrong, and the Tories are gaining in all the right, places.”
I think that the Tories will need a significant lead, even to get ahead on seats. I would have thought that turnout will be high in Tory areas next time, perhaps up to 1992 levels.
In Labour seats, I can see a continuation of poor turnout - so many are around 50% and likely to stay there.
Therefore, for the reason of differential turnout alone, I would say the Tories need large lead.
My hunch is still a hung Parliament, with Labour as the largest party. The way things are panning out at the moment, it would be suicide for the LDs to do a formal pact with Labour, but a lot may change in three years, and Brown may be very different from Blair. My guess is that he will be different in that he will be more a traditional union-backing Labour PM. That would be no good to the LDs either.
So God knows who will run us as the next GE! Do we need a government? The Czechs went months without one recently!
11 Hard to argue with your first paragraph !
11 To follow up on Tabman’s point, if turnout is lower, shouldn’t the opinion polls reflect that? If the abstention rates are higher, shouldn’t the traditional 3% margin of error be higher as well?
As has already been stated we are in the ‘phoney war’ phase leading up to the next election so it’s especially difficult to call at the moment.
On one side Labour are in limbo waiting for their new leader to renew his party and provide (they hope) the refreshment the voters are looking for; on the other side Camerons Conservatives are half way through their own renewal process, hoping to have cast off the negative associations of the Thatcher-Major period; but not yet having moved to the meat on the bone of any policy.
So anything could happen, the tories can screw up on the policy front and Brown could fail to renew Labour.
My view is that the markets are closer than the pollsters - a Tory win looks more likely than a Labour one even though that may not be with an overall majority.
One thing, from a betting standpoint who wins if the Tories win most seats but don’t form a Government, say because Labour does a coalition with the Lib dems?
18 Most pollsters do try to take account of lower and differential turnout by various weighting techniques .
Surely it’s in the nature of politics that (especially when the government has been in office for nearly ten years) opposition parties have more activists, who don’t have enough to do - and Our Genial Host sets up this site, moths to a flame etc.
As to the reliability of betting markets, surely the evidence is that (with the possible exception of Scottish by-elections) they are reliable within reasonable range of the event itself. I know very little about gee-gees, but my understanding is that I can’t bet on the 2010 Derby for the good and sufficient reason that (most of) the horses that will race in it haven’t been born yet.
If there is a Brown bounce of any size, I would expect it to return during the campaign. It would mean that people liked the change of style from Blair, and the one thing I do expect from Brown is that he will be himself. The comparison of Cameron to Blair will be harped upon by those who do not wish Cameron well.
I read Anthony Wells piece and unusually couldn’t follow his logic. He seemed to be saying that The Tories were where they should be to achieve a Labour ‘97 type result. He based this on discounting all pollsters apart from ICM on the basis that they were the only ones who were polling at that time who changed their methodology to the one they use now.And because Labour at the same period after the 92 election were only between -2 and +12% therefore the Tories are where they should be to follow Labours course.
He seemed to ignore or didn’t believe that governing parties have always gone down mid-term. Whatever methodologies pollsters used or whether or not they still exist surely doesn’t rule out this accepted wisdom? The only exception was ‘97-05 and there are many reasons to exlain this. Labours handling of the ecconomy and the Conservative shambles being just two.
The governing party has many weapons not least it’s choice of election date. And of course the possibility of a popular budget just before. It worked for the Tories for 18 years and I wouldn’t bet against it working for Labour.
20 Mark, I am sure that they try to, but how successful are they? Individuals who re recorded as “not likely to vote” or whatever are presumably excluded from the poll; but if they then vote after all they will affect the accuracy of the prediction.
How stable is the population of non-voters?
There’s no doubt Labour’s price is too high but every time I go to click the blue button on Betfair, I think to myself ‘May elections!’ I expect Labour to get a drubbing in May and their price should go higher as a result. That would be the time to buy.
What I would buy now (and have done) is the Hung Parliament price. It’s inconsistent with the other prices. The optimum conditions for an HP are Tories about 6% ahead of Labour and LD anything in excess of about 18%. This is pretty much what you have now. In fact, if you put the current polling percentages into any of the ‘formula machines’ - Baxter, Wells or whatever - you come out slap bang in the middle of HP territory, very much as you would expect. The price should therefore be odds on - about 1/9 if you follow Rod Crosby, or 1/2 if you listen to me. It is currently 11/8. Don’t say you haven’t been told.
It seems to me there are number of reasons for the anomolous HP price. Psychologically it’s difficult to back, especially for partisan punters. It’s a bit like backing the draw at football. It is often good value but somehow it doesn’t excite.
Another reason is that we are conditioned to think of HPs as rarities and somehow believe it can’t happen. Such a view ignores the major changes in voting patterns we have seen over the past twenty years, in particular the increase in LD and Other seats. The conventional wisdom of the past is likely to be the folly of the future.
Mark (14) and others refer to the cost of tying up money. This is true to some extent but a lot of punters, like myself, are happy to put down large amounts now at attractive prices in order to lay off later. The amounts you have to set aside are therefore not as much as you might think. I can therefore only partially agree that that the markets are being played predominantly by staunch party supporters.
[16] SBS wrote I would have thought that turnout will be high in Tory areas next time, perhaps up to 1992 levels. In Labour seats, I can see a continuation of poor turnout - so many are around 50% and likely to stay there. That is one prediction I’d endorse; it will lead to an intensification of the calls we heard on here last year for the Boundaries Commission to incorporate turn-out into their work - and if the Tories don’t form a government next time, I predict that such a proposal will be in their manifesto for the one after next.
Meantime, Ruth Kelly solves the Council housing repairs problem - convert tenancies into full repairing leases!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6355817.stm
Actually, of course, she’s re-cycling a 1970s idea of Heseltine’s.
23 Fair comment though the strong evidence is that people are more likely to say they will vote and then do not rather than say they are unlikely to vote and then do .
Thanks for the article Mike. I tend to agree with the sentiment. As it stands the parties should be al lot closer, however sentiment is probably more with the Conservatives on a long term bet.
that said for the potential returns why would you want to tie up your money for so long?
“it will lead to an intensification of the calls we heard on here last year for the Boundaries Commission to incorporate turn-out into their work - and if the Tories don’t form a government next time, I predict that such a proposal will be in their manifesto for the one after next.”
Such an idea is ridiculous of course. It is basically saying “you layabout scum who do not vote, if you do happen to turn out to vote, we are going to water it down your vote”. Accusations of gerrymandering will abound. Utterly undemocratic to water down potential votes in some constituencies. Look at some of these Labour seats. Low turnout, but big, big majorities. You do wonder what the point in voting is.
If the Tories take this route, it will lead to the destruction of FPTP. (Hooray!).
Re 25, Innonecent yes, ruth is and not going as far as we did in the 1980’s.
23 - and to add somethign further to the mix, pollsters already weight for things like “wrong recall”. Adding in additional adjustment factors must compound the errors, surely?
Inflation down to 2.7%.
31 - fully expect some commentary from Herbert Proper later today on this.
I am fascinated when Tories say Brown is a disastrous Chancellor. There was the big error over pensions, but things have gone smoothly, which is more than you could say for Mr Lawson’s tenure. Growth has been maintained, inflation generally low, unemployment far below what we have seen in the past. I know many Tories since 1997 have been praying for a recession, but it has not happened.
The housing bubble remains a concern, but sensible steps, like removing residential property from permissable SIPP investments (at the last moment), and arguably, the abolition of MIRAS, have made the bubble less bad than it could have been.
Ken Clarke once admitted that had he remained Chancellor he would not have stuck to Tory spending plans for two years (and Gordon did stick to the Tory plans).
I don’t care much for Labour, but their enduring legacy will be an economy that has been well run for a decade. They have not adopted the Tory attitude of “so long as it comes good at election time, it doesn’t matter what happens in between.”
I think the answer is that people aren’t basing their choice on the current poll at all. They’re using the current polls to justify the idea that Cameron is one heck of a politician who is on a slow upward trend. Sure he’s not going to head for 50% but they think the Cameron effect has some steam left in it while Labour seems to have run out.
That’s my view anyway. A few years down the line I do expect to see the Tories ahead of their current position by a few percent. It’ll be a lot harder that stopping the decline that was underway when he took over but he can do it.
I think the people who have bet on this market thus far are optimistic Tories who are delighted with having sustained poll leads, and more astute punters who see some value in Labour’s position. I cannot see anyone backing Labour at this time driven by political liking, but plenty for the Tories.
Peter the Punter (24) (excellent leader last night by the way)
I think there will be a small window of opportunity post May but before Blair setting the departure date when Labour’s price will
drift.
Bottom line is that the Tories still have the proverbial mountain to climb to get to the highest number of seats. There is absolutely no value now in their price.
With the fall in energy prices yet to come, it is obvious that inflation is, ‘the dog that didn’t bark’. There is plenty to criticise this chancellor for, (there always is) but so far there has been no savage turndown which causes a large jump in unemployment, it may come, but hasn’t so far.
35 - we have teetered close to nil growth a few quarters since 1997, but Gordon has always got away with it. Poor George Osborne must be gutted we are not going to have runaway inflation; he’s still wishing recession on us all and is always gleeful at any bad economic indicator.
I feel that much of the Tory front bench, perhaps in a misguided way, have the county’s best interst at heart. Osborne, I feel, does not. Perhaps it’s down to him; perhaps it’s the job of Shadow Chancellors.
Many Labour supporters on here have the same problem as Tories c. 1994/96. Fair-tale-itis. The fairy godmother will appear and all will be well.
Re 32 and 32, SBS and 35 Coldstone. The infaltion numbers are good news, and energy prices are now falling which is also good news. that said I wonder what the RPI actually is after all peoples experiance of inflation is what they will vote on not a polititians favourite measure that makes them look good.
34 - Tyson - Thanks for your kind words - all flattery gratefully received!
I agree about the ’small window of opportunity post-May.’ Although I take the view that will be the time to buy, it may not open at all. It is not inconceivable that the drubbing I and so many others expect for Labour will not happen, in which case the price you are looking at now (Betfair: 2.16 Labour largest party) is about as good as it’s going to get. I don’t think so, but we’ll know soon enough.
The more realistic Tories on this site, such as David Herdson, have always recognised that they have a mountain to climb even to achieve the limited objective of most seats. Paradoxically, the more they acknoledge this, the more likely they are to succeed.
Can someone answer the question posted at 19
“..from a betting standpoint WHO wins if the Tories win most seats but don’t form a Government, say because Labour does a coalition with the Lib dems?”
38 - indeed. New Labour has enfranchised us all with our own individually calculable inflation rates. A sign of a truly liberal government. People already have their own debt levels, after all.
I would like to have my own unemployment rate next. (Currently 0%, but I’m working on it.)
Summary: there is real value in the hung Parliament position, if you want to tie up your money for three years (which is not long compared to many investments). Historically, hung Parliaments were freakish, but nobody serious believes the LDs to be below about 45 after the next election, which with Nats, Inds and NI must give at least 70 others. I would say the chances of a hung Parliament are about 50%.
I can see no value in overall majority for either Labour or the Tories.
36- SBS- the right (George Osbourne as the standard bearer) remind of the middle age “the end of the world is nigh”.
What will happen if the economic record continue to be strong, growth strong, unemployment low, stable house price growth, inflation low, and continued investment in the public services- more teachers, police, nurses doctors, blah, blah. Of course Labour on this kind of record would deserve another chance. Common sense surely?
40 - It depends on the wording of the bet - Betfair seems to have covered its bases on this one (always a first!) by stating ‘who will be the largest party’ (ie have most seats) with no reference to forming a government at all. (So in the example you point out, you would win betting on the Tories)
Talking of the Tories on the site, they have at least enabled me to deduce that their own front bench isn’t much good. For if it were anything like as good as the one Smith and Blair led in opposition, they’d surely let us know
43 Yes Lennon, Betfair is uncharacteristically clear this time although if the result is close, I still foresee trouble. There is bound to be argument as to who does and doesn’t belong to each Party, just as there was in the US mid-terms. If they were wise, they would clear this up before the election.
Bet they don’t.
Is it possile that the advent of pb.com warped the value of the betting market, which because of its small size ceased to resemble a market and became more of small mob/herd.
10 - not quite sure what figures you’re proposing your bet on Mike… If the last figures before the campaign starts are the ones, then maybe we’ll see at the time! Though that wuould require you to say those polls are correct and will reflect the final outcome!
in a GE, the anti-Labs will return to Labour and will start saying so during the campaign to hit out at the tories. I expect a pro-labour boost of c3% during the campaign
45 - Good point about belonging to parties - Does ‘Independant Labour’ still count as Labour? Does ‘Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party’ still count as Conservative? Does ‘Co-Operative Labour’ still count as Labour? Presumably they could clear it up in terms of taking the Labour (or Conservative) whip, although a couple of rebels might decide to not take the whip just to irritate and confuse matters…
41 So, SBS, we now have three probabilty ratings for a Hung Parliament - Rod C 90%, me 75% and you 50%. The current odds of 11/8 equate to 42%.
I’d say that’s value, wouldn’t you?
Too many restrained posts on here this morning! I had one of those ’straw in the wind’ lunches on Friday and some people who had been quite impressed with Cameron a few months ago now seemed rather lukewarm. I’m sure we all have our weather veins and these are mine. The reasons for their lack of enthusiasm wasn’t obvious. I think the dynamite that they thought might exist just just hadn’t shown itself.
On the other hand a Labour supporting friend told me why she disliked Brown and wasn’t looking forward to him replacing Blair. She had just bought a new metro in 98 and Brown had announced he was goung to reduce road tax for small cars. She thought that for the first time ever she would benefit from a budget measure! It turned out that her bottom of the range metro missed out by 2cc and so did nearly every other small car! She thought this dishonest and she thinks this is typical of the man.
32 - SBS - Surely you can’t miss the massive increase in poorly managed government spending (the fact that money is spent doesn’t make it a good thing). Add to that the greater dependency of the population on state handouts and we are in dangerous territory. The really worrying thing is the number of people who now believe that they are being supported by the state through the awful tax credits concept (badly run again) among others. It’s smoke and mirrors to make people feel grateful.
Anyone wondering why labour retains a third of the vote should realise that Brown has made this inevitable for reasons of self interest. The previous tory government did the same thing, make life sweet for just enough people to get you elected. In short, Brown has created massive state dependency, as a liberal surely you should be against that?
Pimpernel’s imaginary labour boost idea was hilarious by the way, the opposite has been the case in polls vs elections but dont let that stop your delusions.
Somewhat O/T fpr Peter The Punter when he appears. I notice Eastwoods have reissued odds on the NI Assembly and lo and behold its now 6/5 on no restoration of power sharing on March 26th.
Tightened already.
41 - My personal inflation rate is also nearly in double figures, someone in power’s got it in for me I tell ya.
45. Yes I can forsee this trouble too. What if the SDLP and Dai Davies take the Labour Whip, allowing say Labour to narrowly overtake the Tories or retain a majority?
What is the definition of a hung parliament?
46 I don’t think it has much impact, Jonathan, except in the most illiquid of markets.
People tend to be a bit coy about how much they stake. I bet in hundreds, not thousands. I think Mike and Jack W bet heavier than me but not hugely. There are one or two professional punters who drop in from time to time but mostly the pickings are too slim for them.
My impression is that most people who post here bet infrequently, if at all. There’s nothing wrong with that but if I am right, there is little or no PB effect on most markets.
55 - I thought Jack W always bet in cases of single malt - the only question was what vintage!
52 Thanks Yokel. I’d forgotten about that! My £40 looking good then? Well done!
51. ‘as a liberal surely you should be against that’
Ukpaul - your reference point appears to be the Liberal Party of 1906 (if not earlier) rather than the pseudo-socialist Lib Dems of today.
52. I see that Eastwoods also have some prices up for a few seats in the forthcoming election. Haven’t had time to study the odds closely, so I haven’t punted as of yet, but will do in the next week or so.
54. My post was curtailed by a unexpected glitch….
What is the definition of a hung parliament? I can think of justifiable figures ranging between
When it comes to elections the voters attitude to the economy is more of a generalised one than a specific. That is are they feeling comfortable, do they feel threatened by any aspect of the economy. Voters do not expect ‘brilliance’ they know that not everything will be perfect, but if they are comfortable, if they do not feel threatened, if they feel that the prospects for them and their families are generally good, they are more likely to reward the government in power with their votes than not. They must also ask themselves, would I get any advantage from a change of government, at the moment I don’t feel they think they would.
damn….
LESS THAN 320 seats to LESS THAN 326 seats for the leading party…
The great uncertauinty is what will a Brown premiership look like? After 10 yeas as chancellor people still do not know.
Even those in the cabinet do not know.
Certainly there is a corrosive feeling of government that Labour is suffering from. One reading the cash for honours enquiry, coupled witht the home office monitoring failures, would think that we live in a banana republic with marauding bands of paedophiles. This combined with a collapse in the health service, economic catasrophe looming, shootings galore, and so on…
Actually, Iraq is an unmitigated disaster (with the resulting illiberal measures). Domestically Nu Lab has done pretty well- a few mistakes along the way, notably pensions, and the odd cock up, but not bad. Cameron has done a pretty good at changing the Tories-so 2009 looks to be a fairly matched up battle.
58 - I’d say pre-merger not 1906 but you’re right, I’ve never been happy with the social democrat strand and would be happy to see it in the labour party where it belongs. The far left excursions of labour in the 80’s have created a bit of a dog’s breakfast (and it’s one of the main reasons why parties are perceived as being close politically now), social democrats and liberals are a very uneasy mix.
Re 50, Roger, it is interesting to see how people form their opinions of politicians. Normally it is through personal experiance.
I suspect that will damage Brown as so many people who used to have minimal dealings with the IR now have much more and frequently awkward ones.
65 - A good example being a couple of posts today that dismiss pensions as an isolated error, try telling that to my recently retired parents.
[58] As a Liberal I am anti-Socialist, and your claiming black is white does not make it true. The Lib Dems are now putting forward polices that are distinctly liberal- and they mean it. When Mr. Cameron is ready to put forward any fully worked out policy then we can judge whether he is a liberal, a conservative or has no principles at all- but until then the jury must remain out.
Meanwhile the Lib Dem policy papers are all about abolishing a very large number of laws and government bodies, from the DTi to most of the recent criminal justice legislation and capping the tax burden- that all sounds pretty liberal to me.
Re 66, UKPaul, ues, a lot of pensioners on 8% to 10% inflation and a crippled pension will be spitting blood. So will a lot the rural working class Labour voters who will no longer vote Labour over fox hunting.
56 Lennon. I never bet in something as precious as single malt ….. the thought of losing is too awful to contemplate.
……whereas losing mere cash is tolerable ….. except when I lost £35K at Royal Ascot several years back !!!!!!!!!
peter the Punter
My only bet that I have locked up is on Reid which still grieves me. I bet on events (close to)- the US congressionals, the Italian elections, football matches, and other sport occasions- I will punt on the French election if I think Royal will win.
Unlike you and Mike and many others I cannot bet on outcomes I politically do not want (unless laying of course)- the winnings would not give me any satisfaction. I had to lay all my bet on Portugal before the England match.
64. ‘I’ve never been happy with the social democrat strand and would be happy to see it in the labour party where it belongs’
In the event of a hung parliament, I’m sure that a rapprochement won’t be long in coming!
67 - Cicero, as a mere voter I don’t get the inside feel but would you say that the old SDP factions have been ‘de-socialised’? My worry has always been that state loving social democrats would get the upper hand, is that now no longer an issue?
71 - Don’t forget that a fair number joined the tories too, is Cameron’s chocolate orange tendency going to encourage them or is his ‘ant-ID card’ type liberalism the real Cameron? We shall have to wait and see.
57. Forgot? Poor record keeping Peter…tut tut.
59. Ian, nominations close today so we shoudl have a picture of who is standing where by this evening.
It is currently as clear as mud at the moment what the anti agreement types on both sides are going to do and whethe there will be a strong sit at home faction for both SF & the DUP.
At the moment the defection tyopes from the DUP are currently being flushed out, SF’s already having done so in the previous weeks. You then have rejectionists who were outside both party structures to begin with. For both factions to actuallt win a seat that they previoiusly never had is a pretty tall order and I suggest they’d be lucky to gain one new seat each, its damage they may do to the DUP & SF winning seats under STV which is perhaps going to be more significant.
Some very thoughtful posts this morning. Is it just ‘cos it’s a slow news day or because Snowflake is recuperating? I suppose it’s too early for the Creatures of the Night.
I liked your last para, Tyson. I might qualify it a bit but it’s hardly worth the bother.
UK Paul - sorry about your parents but I think the blame rests as much with the pensions industry as with government.
Re 73, UKpaul, Liberals surely experessed views on what they thought was good or bad without always wanting to legislate on them?
ukPaul- try telling those other pensioners who have cashed in on equity to buy second homes, downsized and bought abroard. Those many million others who are benefiting from the increases in health spending, who pre 1997 might have been languishing on waiting lists.
Labour should not be judged solely on its failures as many on this site would like. There are many achievements, and for many people life is better than 10 years ago.
68
I live in a rural area, I was told that millions would vote against Labour in the 2001 election because of the fox hunting ban, no sign of it. I remember Janet Daley writing in the Daily Telegraph before that election, ‘The entire countryside will rise up as one, and drive this rotton government from power’ On top of that we had foot and mouth, didn’t have much of an impact. Most people who live in the countryside have very little to do with it. They get up every morning and drive to their jobs in banks and building societies etc. what happens in those big green rectangles, ‘what are they called? fields or something’ is a total mystery to them, to them its just somewhere to walk the dog.
70. Tyson, you should give it a go even when it isn’t what you want. I bet on France vs Ireland at the weekend and topped it up in running so sure was I that Ireland would fluff it, even tho.
Tidy profit even though I have an interest in the Irish team’s fortunes.
By the way, hard to say but I have a feeling England could possibly turn the Irish over in Dublin in a couple of week’s time. At this stage I haven’t put cash on it but am waiting for injury news from both camps.
70. Tyson, you should give it a go even when it isn’t what you want. I bet on France vs Ireland at the weekend and topped it up in running so sure was I that Ireland would fluff it, even tho.
Tidy profit even though I have an interest in the Irish team’s fortunes.
By the way, hard to say but I have a feeling England could possibly turn the Irish over in Dublin in a couple of week’s time. At this stage I haven’t put cash on it but am waiting for injury news from both camps.
70. Tyson, you should give it a go even when it isn’t what you want. I bet on France vs Ireland at the weekend and topped it up in running so sure was I that Ireland would fluff it, even tho.
Tidy profit even though I have an interest in the Irish team’s fortunes.
By the way, hard to say but I have a feeling England could possibly turn the Irish over in Dublin in a couple of week’s time. At this stage I haven’t put cash on it but am waiting for injury news from both camps.
70. Tyson, you should give it a go even when it isn’t what you want. I bet on France vs Ireland at the weekend and topped it up in running so sure was I that Ireland would fluff it, even tho.
Tidy profit even though I have an interest in the Irish team’s fortunes.
By the way, hard to say but I have a feeling England could possibly turn the Irish over in Dublin in a couple of week’s time. At this stage I haven’t put cash on it but am waiting for injury news from both camps.
73 - Of course we never know until someone is in power, I thought that Blair was liberal until I saw him in action. Will Cameron be the same or will he resist the lure of power?
Right I can’t explain that triple post, I’m going for brunch….
74 Oh no, Yokel, it was recorded alright - but under ’sundries’! The big ones are reviewed two or three times a day. One of these is a £300 lay of Kauto Star at 2.92. His performance on Saturday did nothing to discourage the doubters.
I had an interesting conversation with friends in the pub last night which became very revealing; these are non-political folk -small business owners who admit to generally not voting; and not caring who runs the country much. I keep in touch precisely because they don’t share my passion for politics so I get the odd ‘night off’.
One of them is a Scot.
The subject of Brown came up - over his football comments, his Scottishness and the whole Scots thing then suddenly erupted. Everyone there - including a couple of strangers at the bar who joined in- and my Scottish friend became really animated - general view, Alex Salmond is the best advert for English Independence; closely followed by Gordo himself.
They are really and truly fed up with what they said were the Scots getting ’special treatment’, fed up with being ruled by Scottish politicians, and suddenly very keen not to have an austere presbyterian Scot as Prime Minister.
What was really interesting though was that they all felt that at the next election Scottish MP’s from Labour and the LD’s would in effect deprive the country of the Tory Government they are certain the English will have voted for.
Anecdotal stuff is very important to me.
I have changed my mind. I think English Nationalism will be a defining issue at the next election.
PtP - “UK Paul - sorry about your parents but I think the blame rests as much with the pensions industry as with government. ”
I agree, but, as you suggest, the blame lies equally and there’s an awful lot of blame to apportion.
86 - You planning on joining francis and the English Democrats then?
77 - You appear to come from a much more comfortable world than I if that is your experience regarding ‘downsizing’. On the subject of the NHS my father has been helped excellently in the past year but, as a balance to that, my mother has struggled with NHS priorities. For every person benefitting there are those who haven’t, it doesn’t help to have an ‘I’m alright Jack’ attitude.
So let me get this right Marcus, Who holds the seat you hope to take for the Tories at the nect GE, is it the Liberal Democrats by any chance? So will you be putting in your election pamphlet some thing like this’ If you don’t want the Scots to be running Torbay, don’t vote Liberal Democrat’might work!
Peter the Punter- I will qualify it a bit then for you- I am sure that you wouldn’t wager on the likes of the BNP, the Bush republicans or other extreme parties for the sake of winning some cash.
I would think that you couldn’t have backed Bush like Mike Smithson did in 2000. Mike has posted here a number of occasions that he wouldn’t let sentiment get in the way of winning some money, and used his 2000 GOP winnings as evidence. A bet too far IMO.
69 JackW- golly I am surprised that you didn’t keel over that fateful day at Ascot. 35k. Ughhhhh!!!
UKPaul. I’m curious to know what went wrong with your parents pensions? Speaking for myself though nowhere near pensionable age my private pension has grown hugely since the early nineties. Each year they send me a total transfer value and it’s been growing massively particularly in the last four years..
86 Marcus. I agree, people I know (including family) have over the past fews years developed an Anti-Scots sentiment.
I think that it is largely irrational and perhaps has more to do with problems with English identity/confidence rather than Scots. Needless to say anyone with a Scots accent will stoke things up with this lot, which could be a problem for Brown and Campbell.
I instinctively recoil at anyone who questions whether a Scot should be PM.
Re 78, Coldstone, I was talking abour the sort of people who do thnigs in those fields, not the people who commute.
87 UK Paul - Yes, it’s aright mess. There have been some big winners and a lot of losers. You’ve got to feel sorry for the latter.
78. Coldstone, given the low regard in which you apparently view your neighbours, do you regret moving from London?
93. I think that is wrong. The regrettable growth of anti-Scottish sentiment in England is the (delayed) reaction to the sharp increase in anti-English sentiment - often aggressively expressed - north of the border.
roger - “About 120,000 people lost part or all of their expected final salary pensions in recent years, as companies struggled with rising deficits. The removal of tax relief on share dividends starved funds of a key source of money.
Derek Scott, who was Mr Blair’s senior economic adviser for six years, said that the Prime Minister disagreed with Mr Brown’s decision to remove relief, but the Chancellor “pushed it through” anyway.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/15/nbrown15.xml
The “I’m alright Jack” attitude from Tyson, and now you. Are you sensing a pattern here?
86 Marcus- if you call that lot apolitical, god help what the ones interested in politcis are like in your area.
I had an interesting converstaion in a local pub in the heart of Cameron country last year on immigration. I argued that immigration was a nonsense and people should come and go into this country as they pleased. I thought I was going to get lynched.
The reactionary views of our pub culture never ceases to amaze. Alcohol plays a contributing role in fuelling passions.
Chris from Paris Do your average poll numbers cover the Le Figaro magazine poll? Also Mike have you heard from YouGov on their take about their high UKIP numbers?
86. Marcus. I’d change my pub. If you want to drink with bigots you can always find them. Would I be right in thinking you weren’t in a large town or city?
I noticed an article by Melanie Phillips posted on here yesterday. It was about Cameron smoking dope. The article can be dismissed as prejudice but accompanying it was a picture of Cameron and associates including Boris Johnson taken at Eton or perhaps Oxford.
The significance of the picture wasn’t lost on Melanie and it wont be lost on Labour’s spinners and ultimately voters. There is something of the ‘Master of the Universe’ in that picture that is pretty unattractive. Melanie spotted it which isn’t surprising. Right wing bigots know exactly where to place the knife. But that side of Cameron’s history is a great big elephant in the room and be sure it’ll be noticed.
91 Tyson. Strangely I ended slightly up on the year, mainly from European football. But overall financially I’d had an excellent year so the hit was well covered.
I always operate on the basis that:
1. I never risk what I can’t afford to lose.
2. Never, ever let sentiment cloud your judgement.
3. Value in a market is the key to success.
4. There’s one born every minute and these fools and their cash are most welcome.
101. Alternatively if you want to listen to the incoherent ramblings of pub bores without the alcohol, you can always log on here and read the postings of Roger et al.
93. “I think that it is largely irrational and perhaps has more to do with problems with English identity/confidence rather than Scots”
There wasn’t anti-Scots sentiment in a racist way at all, just irritation that the Scots have their own parliament and yet are percieved to a) still not be happy about it and b) seem to want to run our parliament as well as theirs.
I must make clear that my Scottish friend - albeit ‘Southern Softie’ for at least 25 years agreed totally. He has a fantastic turn of phrase and said last night ‘Aye - the thing about Scotland is that anyone there with any ‘get-up-and-go’ got up and went years ago.”
My point is that I hadn’t taken the potential for an anti-Union backlash particularily seriously up to now but last night I did wonder what will happen if, as seems possible, at the next election a substantial majority vote in England comes out against the Labour Government but Brown remains Prime Minister.
91 - Tyson - That’s a very interesting question and one that I haven’t fully come to terms with yet, so I can only answer it by telling you what I have done.
I frequently tell myself that partisan feelings should play no part in my betting judgements but in practice I find it hard. I have seldom, if ever, bet against the England soccer team, even when their odds looked good value to me. After the 2005 Ashes series however, I backed Australia to win them straight back - £300 at the golden odds of 4/6. It somehow didn’t feel right though.
I certainly wouldn’t have any problem backing the Republicans if I thought they were value, even though I dislike the current administration very much. However, I did back Le Pen for the French Presidentials and wondered whether I should feel ashamed. Naturally I was only looking to lay off when the price dropped (it didn’t) but that’s not the point. Should anybody really be backing a stinkpot like that?
And what about backing the BNP? Are they not as bad as Le Pen? (Close call that one, I should think.) The punter in me say back ‘em if they’re value, but the heart says otherwise.
I suppose the answer is that I try to be objective and on the whole, I’m successful, partly because I am generally backing in markets where I don’t have strong allegiances. But I reckon anybody who thinks they are immune to partisan punting is kidding themselves.
“roger - “About 120,000 people lost part or all of their expected final salary pensions in recent years, as companies struggled with rising deficits. The removal of tax relief on share dividends starved funds of a key source of money”
They suffered from the stock market crash of 2001. The removal of tax relief on interest wasn’t the significant factor. People with private pensions cant blame this loss of tax relief on why their pensions have collapsed! And if they sat it out they’d be doing pretty well by now. My money was with Equitable Life of all places and I took it out after their problems and put it elsewhere and it’s now growing at over 10% a year as it has been bar a two year blip since ‘92.
101. Cameron’s history is a great big elephant in the room and be sure it’ll be noticed.
I suppose 10 years of failed Labour Government is not a tiny such a tiny elephant either? Hate to think your reaction if something nasty comes out about one of the nulabour high command. oh, sorry forgeot about Prescott, Jowell’s husband, Levy, Mandelson - Robinson, Blunkett, Straw’s son etc etc and i cannot name some incidents because it is unfare on the individual. Talk about biggots roger - you are an inverted bigot - critising other people for being a bigot, when in fact you are worse!!!
106 - You really don’t have a clue about this do you? Do you understand the term ‘company pension’ for a start?
106 “They suffered from the stock market crash of 2001. The removal of tax relief on interest wasn’t the significant factor.”
Hahahahahah - why on earth do you think the stockmarket crashed Roger?
You obviously don’t know any more about economics that Gordon Brown.
On thread for a change - I firmly believe that the Conservatives will win a small working majority at the next GE, if it is delayed until around 2009/10. Before I get howls of derision from the usual suspects let me explain my reasoning.
1. Brown will get a minimal (if any) bounce before falling back again. The economy will continue to slowly get worse for many people with rising interest rates and tax increases biting. There is also a risk of the housing market in the SE overheating and going into gentle reverse gear.
2. Cameron will move into Phase 2. Policies will be launched and firmer positions taken on a number of Conservative pleasing issues, as well as positions (NO ID Cards etc) which will attract Lib Dem and ex New labour supporters. He will risk losing a few on the right by not pledging tax cuts - although further hints will be dropped into conversation - and he will continue to adopt liberal social positions. There is an outside chance he may lose an MP or two who defect to UKIP or sit as Independents in protest, but I judge this as unlikely as long as he leads in the polls. Even Bernard Matthews’ turkeys dont vote FOR Christmas!
3. We will see the first MP defections TO the Conservative party. I think that several Lib Dem MPs who have had talks already with Cameron’s office and CCHQ, will jump ship if they see that he intends to stick with his liberal social agenda and not revert to a more right-wing style of rhetoric. They may be joined by one or two increasingly unhappy back bench Labour MPs who expect to lose their seats. (I am already aware of one Lib Dem MP who has privately expressed his profound admiration at the way that Cameron handled the drugs allegations this weekend).
4. On the polls - by the Autumn of this year I expect the Conservatives to be breaching 40% in several polls and maybe touching 42-43%. Labour will be hitting 28-29% in some like YouGov and ICM with the Lib Dems becalmed on 16-19%.
5. Rumblings will grow within the Lib Dem ranks about Campbell’s leadership and Kennedy will start to think it is his time to return as leader. These tensions will dilute the Lib Dem message and spur defections when Campbell refuses to make way.
6. Local elections - the Conservatives will make big gains both this May and next May with the Lib Dems failing to deliver the expected goods. Labour will be all but wiped out as a party of local govt in the South of England outside of London and they will be greatly diminished in the Midlands. The Conservatives will make some limited progress in terms of seats in the Welsh Assembly and will hold their current total in Scotland’s Parliament. The PR system in Scotlands local elections will deliver a Conservative presence for the first time in areas where we had been non existant.
So come the General Election (assuming 2009/10) the Conservatives will win a small majority of 10-20 seats by taking from both Labour and the Lib Dems. If Brown goes early this Autumn (unlikely) or next summer, the chances of a Hung Parliament IMHO are much more likely.
Now I will stand back and read with interest the comments on my assessment! hehehe
Peter I am confused about the IG index situation - I have commented on the last thread.
109 I don’t normally try to defend roger, but surely you’re not claiming that the stockmarket crash was due to the removal of tax relief…
110. Re. Lib Dem defections, it is surprising (or is it?) how little comment there has been on the recent news confirming that David Laws has been talking to George Osborne about a possible move.
109 Mr Angry
Isn’t it the case that prices on the UK Stock Market are heavily dependent on overseas investments and the performance of overseas markets?
Never mind about Roger and Gordon Brown - how much do you know about economics?
109. It crashed in every country of the world. The dot.com bubble was partly responsible but 9/11 didn’t help.The crash here was only average.
The link to Melanies famous picture (post 101)!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=435577&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=256
PS. What a shame Mr Angry, Labour Bigots and Bar Manager dont have the courage to use their more usual usernames. Perhaps Mike could do us all a favour and identify them?
110 Same comment as usual Rik W - You are highly partisan, but we love you for it!
98-The “I’m alright Jack” attitude from Tyson, and now you. Are you sensing a pattern here?
ukPaul- Yes, I have done extremely well under a labour govt. From negative equity in 1997 to being extremely comfortable now. I have a number of investments, a few properties, and a well paid job with prospects and good pension- all from being debt ridden in 1997, and having to commute 150 miles a day in a clapped out car to find appropriate work.
My 2 brothers have also done well- both entrepreneurs, and both now self made multi millionaires. My sister- teacher has done well-probably a property millionaire (lives in London and bought well). My parent(s)- worked in the public sector- have done well with their pensions. My friends from school have done well- benefiting from full employment, and house prices. My colleagues at work have done well- good jobs, good prospects.
My friend who just lost his wife through cancer cannot praise the health service high enough. I had a strange virus in the summer- led to me being off work for a while (and posting on here alot, today I am on leave)- the care I got from the health service was superb. Everytime I want to book a GP I can get one for the next day.
I am really struggling to think of someone I know personally who has lost out under labour. Sure, my brother in laws parents lost out on the equitable life debacle, but they already had a house paid off, and still appear to be doing OK.
The fact that many of the above (including some of my nearest and dearest I hate to say) are Tories, and Tory voters doesn’t change the fact that they have done very well under a Lab Govt.
110 Have you been sharing some of Cameron’s 25 year old dope ?
113 That is because Laws basically told Osborne to p**s off
OT Sir Patrick Cormack, Conservative MP for Staffs Moorlands, has failed to be adopted for next election and may stand as an Indepependent.
118 Or even Independent.
115 - “PS. What a shame Mr Angry, Labour Bigots and Bar Manager dont have the courage to use their more usual usernames.”
I agree but you can’t make people come out of the closet. Nevertheless when you see comments under ‘one-off’ names, it’s a right giveaway.
I suspect The Creatures of the Night - outside their normal hours.
118. Not Staffs Moorlands, which is Labour-held. South Staffs.
“Whenever people tell me that governments always recover as we get closer to elections I respond by saying that a lot of that was probably a product of poor polling techniques that over-stated Labour.”
Mike, that is why I used REAL votes (by-elections) not so long ago to prove the point that governments ALWAYS do recover….
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/30/guest-slot-rod-cosbys-by-election-trend-analysis/
No opposition party, repeat NO party, has ever exceeded its average parliamentary by-election performance in a General Election, and recently (the last 30 years at least), the Opposition has suffered a consistent 4% SWING-BACK to the Government from its B.E. performance.
The current Tory by-election performance is about a 3.9% average swing (very similar to their opinion poll position, btw).
Several conclusions appear to flow from this fact:
Unless there is a dramatic Tory improvement in by-election performance,- say swings of 10-15% (which would still be only modestly impressive by historical standards) we could safely say:-
The maximum GE swing could not exceed 3.9% (not enough even to make the Tories the largest party)
The likely swing (factoring in the historical swingback trend) could be as low as 0% !!!, leaving Labour with a clear majority.
To counterbalance that, Hague scored a 1.8% swing in 2001, and Howard got 3.1% in 2005. So a Hague swing would mean goodbye Labour majority, a Howard swing would mean hello LibDem Kingmakers(although Labour still largest party).
All very confusing!!! except none of it good news for the Tories…
Labour largest party looking “overwhelmingly likely” - hung parliament “likely” would be a fair conclusion…..
Another point is that it may raise the bar for the Tories from a 6% lead (largest party) to about 8%, the point where Labour and LD combined could not command a majority in the House, because I personally feel that if they had the numbers a deal would be inevitable…
118 - Not quite true…or at least not yet. He failed to secure the support of the Executive Council. As ConsHome has noted, he can appeal to the entire membership as James Gray successfully did a couple of weeks back. My guess is he too would emerge victorious….but I wonder what has gone wrong in the relationship with the local activists.
86 - “What was really interesting though was that they all felt that at the next election Scottish MP’s from Labour and the LD’s would in effect deprive the country of the Tory Government they are certain the English will have voted for. ” So the Tories are heading for 50% of the vote in England, are they?
110 - aha! Defection alert. Again. You may be right right this team from rumblings I have heard. If Kennedy does not get the chance to return as LD leader, he may well join the Tories. Help yourself!
42 - “Of course Labour on this kind of record would deserve another chance. Common sense surely?” - the economy does not always dictate election results. The economy was shafted in 1992, and the Tories still won. By 1997, things were good, and the Tories lost. Even if the economy if still good in 2010 - and I hope it will be, Labour may well not deserve a second chance… Iraq, ID cards, wasting public money on big projects, pensions, corruption, creeping authoritarianism…
Patrick Cormack will certainly want to be in the next Parliament as he is in with a shout of being father of the house.
124 - “a second chance… ” - sorry meant fourth chance!
Interesting discussions.
Labour’s record on criminal justice, immigration, and taxation are the domestic issues that are hitting them hardest among the electorate, I think. I’m not sure how they can put these right in time for the next election.
115 - It might also be fun to kow who Woger is. As his only rival for sustained personal invective is ColinW, Woger is just about the last person to comment on others. He/she is invarably a case of pots and kettles, couled with bizarre assumptions.
One can safely assume that Woger’s latest “straw in the wind” will be the usual case of flatulence in a colander.
Imagine lunch with Woger, braying out loud about his view on the universe. Hope the various straws in the wind had earplugs.
118/121/123. OK wrong area .. wrong information and wrong assess