politicalbetting.com

Will this impede Brown’s election momentum?

Reproduced here is the front page of this morning’s Times showing the lead story which won’t please Number 10. For Labour’s new leader is accused of “rehashing old phrases from Bill Clinton and Al Gore without attribution in his first speech to a Labour conference as Prime Minister”.

The report describes a study of Brown conference speech on Monday which “shows a marked similarity between parts of Mr Brown’s speech and big set-piece speeches of Democrat leaders” and goes on to list a number of similar phrases and ideas.

Brown’s speech is also said to have followed a similar format and the paper reports that parts may have been crafted by Bob Schrum who worked for both Gore and Clinton and who has been a regular recent visitor to Downing Street.

So what? - you might say. Who cares? - the story is hardly likely to become the talking point in pubs this evening. Yet as the 1988 Democratic hopeful, Joe Biden, will testify things like this can seriously de-rail a campaign.

It will be recalled that Biden’s standard stump speech included the phrase “Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go a university? Why is it that my wife . . . is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright…? ..” This was an almost direct copy of Neil Kinnock’s 1987 election rhetoric.

For me the most interesting element is that, in its early editions at least, the Times is leading on the story thus ensuring that it might get picked up by other parts of the media.

Could this be another shot across Labour’s bows from Rupert Murdoch? He can’t allow Brown to get so far ahead that he doesn’t need the media magnate’s support any more.

Brown has had such an exceptionally good first quarter that a real danger is the so called media narrative changing. And if that happens then all talk of a 2007 election may come to an end.

Conservative party watchers might note that the ever present opposition attack dog, Chris Grayling, is quoted by the paper putting the boot in. As I’ve discussed before he is the Tory to follow and might just be a future leadership candidate.

Mike Smithson

What do you think of the “2nd best 2nd worst rule”?

With so many polls showing such different pictures I’ve now adopted my own “rule of thumb” for working out what the big picture is. Basically I take the latest surveys from YouGov, Mori, ComRes, ICM and Populus and take the second lowest share for Labour and the second highest shares for the Tories and Lib Dems.

Where two or more pollsters are showing the same high figure I take that and do the same with the low ones.

The reason for this is that the pollsters have a long-standing tendency to understate the main opposition parties and to overstate Labour. Even though the formula compensates for this it would have over-stated Labour in the past four general elections but not by as much as most individual polls.

One of the issues is that many respondents say Labour when they actually mean “Anti-Tory” - an element that affects ratings for both parties. Also with nearly 10% of all seats in Lib Dem hands there are going to be even more tactical considerations next time, whenever that is.

In 2005 the approach would have produced CON 33% (correct): LAB 37%(+1): LD 23% (correct).

Taking the second highest and second lowest cuts out the odd rogue or old survey.

Based on the latest polls from the five pollsters the current “Second best - second worst” calculation produces CON 34%: LAB 39%: LD 18% - which seems about right.

Mike Smithson

Why are the spread markets not reacting?

The above shows the latest commons seat spread prices from two of the main markets - IGIndex and Spreadfair - and from where I sit these levels simply do not fit with the polling evidence.

We are nearly at the stage, surely, where it’s going to be very difficult for Brown and Labour to pull back from the general election challenge. Last night’s stunning poll showing C33-LAB44-LD13 will almost certainly prove to be an overstatement of Brown’s position. In fact I am sure it will but it is becoming very difficult to argue that an October-November general election would produce anything other than a significant Labour majority.

Yet with 325 seats being the magic point at which Labour would be returned with a majority the current spreads seem extraordinary. These levels will surely go up.

There will be a raft of new polls over the weekend and if they also show a further move to Labour then the pressure on Gordon to risk it this autumn are going to be almost overwhelming.

With commons seat spread betting you buy and sell like shares on a stock exchange. The higher level is the buy price and the lower one the sell price. Thus I hold a buy contract on Labour at 318 seats. If they ended up 358 my profits would be the difference between the two numbers multiplied by the stake level. So a £20 bet would produce winnings of forty times that - £800. I can sell the position now at the 322 level and still make four times the stake as profit.

Of course if things move in the other direction losses are calculated in the same way.

My biggest position is a £42 sell at 75 weeks on the length of time between Brown’s arrival at Number 10 and the general election. If there is an early poll then my profit could be sixty times that £42. Even if there is no 2007 election there will be continued speculation throughout 2008 and the levels will remain tight.

Mike Smithson

The Lib Dems move down as Labour hits a staggering 44%

A YouGov poll for Channel Four news taken in the immediate aftermath of of Brown’s conference speech gives Labour an amazing 44% share with the Lib Dems down to 13%.

These are the shares with the changes on the last poll from the internet pollster - CON 33% (nc): LAB 44% (+5): LD 13% (-3).

This is the lowest Lib Dem share from YouGov since Kennedy moved on and won’t surprise the party which has long complained about the pollster’s approach.

Clearly the timing was crucial. Staging a poll so soon after a leader’s speech of any party was going to produce a boost given the amount of media coverage that is given.

YouGov does not weight by certainty to vote though it should be said that in the latest ICM poll Labour supporters were almost as likely to say they would turn out as the Tories. This has been a sharp trend in the period since Brown came in.

This is going to affect the thinking on an early election and it become harder for Brown to resist it. What better opportunity will he ever have?

My money stays as a buyer of Labour seats and a seller of Gordon weeks on the spread markets.

Mike Smithson

Could a Dutch referendum have acted as a shield?

News from the Hague within the past hour could have a big impact on UK politics. For as can be seen from the EU Observer report the chances of there being a referendum in the Netherlands on the EU treaty now look very slim indeed.

It will be recalled that the Dutch rejected the EU constitution in a vote in 2004 which took the pressure off Tony Blair who had promised to put the issue to the electors here.

If the Dutch referendum had gone forward it would have given an added boost to the current high profile campaign for a vote in the UK. Yet in a way it could put more pressure on the government here. For it would have been much easier for Brown to have made a U-turn over his original rejection of the plan if the Dutch were planning a vote as well. The British would not have been the sole blockers of the EU changes.

Now Britain is on its own and the Murdoch press is not going to put its attack dogs back in their kennels.

Mike Smithson

Can he appeal to Ming’s party and make speeches like yesterday’s?

As discussed yesterday the move to Labour in the polls has been as a result of two major developments - more Labour supporters are saying that they would be certain to vote and the party is winning back support from the party that Brown irritatingly refers to as “the Liberals”.

The idea of “Gordon Conservatives” is, for the moment, a device to put pressure on the Tories. All the polls show that their numbers are dwarfed by the “Dave Labourites”.

The Lib Dems, however, are a totally different proposition and all the evidence is that a part of the Brown bounce is made up of returning 2005 voters for Kennedy’s party. There are a lot of them. Between 2001 and 2005 Labour dropped six percentage points most of which seems to have been caused by Iraq.

Once that is finally off the agenda then Labour must be hoping that LD voters might come back.

Individual polls vary but my guess is that about a third of those who abandoned Labour at the last election have now returned and that move has been accelerated since Gord’s arrival. So there’s still a lot to play for which is why, as both Cameron and Brown have identified, the next election is about winning the centre ground.

The Lib Dems also hold a raft of seats where Labour is sitting in second place and might have hopes of victory. Of Brown’s top 50 targets a fifth are in Lib Dem hands.

If the Tories do make some progress then it would be nice to off-set part of the impact with some gains from the Lib Dems.

So the interesting dilemma for Brown is how can he continue with his Tory undermining strategy while at the same time building up his appeal to Lib Dem waverers? For while yesterday’s conference speech might have helped the former there was not that much to appeal to the latter.

Maybe an early move on ID cards could help?

The reason why I think that an election is not imminent is that there’s still a long way to go before Gordon has the Tories where he wants them.

Mike Smithson