Can the Tories break the 300 seat ceiling?
January 18th, 2008
The Commons seat spreads - where the serious punters go
Reproduced above are this morning’s commons seats spreads from Sporting Index where you bet on how many seats the main parties are going to get at the next election. They show the Conservatives at almost their highest ever since the general election. There has only been one previous period, in late November, when the mid-point (the average of the BUY and SELL levels) has risen about the 300 mark.
As we get closer to the general election it will be spread markets like these where the serious action takes place. For here the more punters get it right the more they win - and the more they are wrong the more they lose.
What will give this a boost at the next election is that Sporting Index and others have made it considerably easier to open a credit account instantly online. This means that unlike other forms of betting you don’t have to put any money up front - a great boon for those of us who recoil at being asked to lock up cash now on an election that might still be two and a half years off.
Another reason why the spreads are attractive to gamblers like me is that if you correctly predict how you think the market will move then you can close down your position and pocket your profits immediately. Thus in July 2004 I put a £100 a seat spread bet on the Liberal Democrats when the buy level was 58 seats. By November 2004 the spread had risen sharply and I was able to close the position down at 72 seats. I made a profit of the difference between the two prices - 14 seats - multiplied by my stake level = £1400.
Even though the eventual outcome on May 5th 2005 had the party getting 62 seats that did not affect my winnings. Alas, it can of course go the other way and losses are calculated in exactly the same way as profits.
-
So what do we make of the spread levels above - are the Tories going to beat the 304 buy level?; will Labour do better than 272 seats and is there any value in the Lib Dem spread?
Before previous elections the spreads moved broadly in line with what the seat predictors suggested might happen from the latest polls. That’s not happening at the moment. There seems to be much more caution amongst Tory backers than we have experienced before. Thus last weekend’s YouGov figure fed into the main seat predictors suggest a total of 345-349 seats which would give Cameron an overall majority of 40-50.
The SI levels today suggest that Cameron would be 20-25 seats short of an overall majority.
WARNING: It’s very easy, especially when you have a credit account, to get carried away with this form of betting - so be ultra cautious and work out what your losses would be in the worst case scenario. Four hours before the polls closed on election day in 2005 I blew a significant part of my overall general election profits by putting several hundred pounds a seat on the Lib Dems at the 68 level. They got 62 seats. It’s still painful.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Can the Tories break the 300 seat ceiling?
In my estimation (& betting), no.
It’s deceptively easy to look at polls (fluid anyway) and assume that kind of result, but when trying to tot up the individual seats they’d have to win, it’s hard to see them coming close. There are too many MPs of the other parties who are well ingrained and would only be susceptible to a really dramatic 1997-style movement. And I just can’t see that happening.
I think there is just a little bit of value in the Lib Dem spread. It appears like the poll levels have leveled off and can now gently rise. History shows us that the Libs tend to finish a GE campaign polling around 2% higher than they started. In the short term, they are always just a by-election away from a market shift, allowing early profit trousering.
1 - Oxonian, when only a minority of voters can even name their MP let alone tell you very much about them how bedded in can you really be? A good MP may get you an extra 1,000-2,000 votes but not much more.
YouGov have released the datasheet from the Scottish Daily Express poll published on Monday (for those who do not know yet: the Scottish edition of the Daily Express recently declared it is now pro-independence). Unfortunately it does not clear up the main mystery: what on earth is that amazing 18% “Others” support at the Holyrood regional vote? Everybody is assuming that it must be nearly all Greens, but also note that YouGov have a pretty useless record of measuring Green support north of the border.
Anyway, for us political junkies, there is the bonus of a brand new Scottish Westminster voting intention poll!! And a large number of supplementary questions, mostly on the constitutional issue.
Here is the new Westminster poll (+/- % from GE 2005):
Sample size: 1343 (a bit bigger than usual)
Fieldwork: 3 - 8 January 2008
1. Lab 36% (-3%)
2. SNP 30% (+12%)
3. Con 18% (+2%)
4. LD 12% (-11%)
Putting these numbers through Baxter gives:
1. Lab 40 seats (-1)
2. SNP 10 seats (+4)
3. LD 7 seats (-4)
4. Con 2 (+1)
oth 5%
Baxter’s “Table of all seat results in Scotland” thingy is still not working, so it is not entirely clear which seats would be changing hands; although not too hard to work out with a bit of head-rubbing:
Aberdeen North - SNP gain from Lab
Argyll and Bute - SNP gain from LD
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - Con gain from LD
Dunfermline and West Fife - Lab hold (reverting to Lab after LD by election win)
Gordon - SNP gain from LD
Inverness Nairn Badenoch and Strathspey - Lab gain from LD
Ochil and South Perthshire - SNP gain from Lab
Many other seats (eg. Dunbartonshire East - LD/Lab marginal) would be desperately, desperately tight.
The Scottish Parliament figures (which we have known since the Daily Express published them on Monday):
FPTP Constituency vote (+/- % from GE 2007):
1. SNP 38% (+5%)
2. Lab 29% (-3%)
3= Con 14% (-3%)
3= LD 14% (-2%)
oth 6%
PR Regional vote:
1. SNP 30% (-1%)
2. Lab 27% (-2%)
3. Con 13% (-1%)
4. LD 12% (+1%)
oth 18%
Putting these through the Scotland Votes seat calculator gives, roughly (we do not know how “Others” breaks down):
1. SNP 42 seats (-5)
2. Lab 38 seats (-8)
3. Grn 19 seats (+17)
4. LD 15 seats (-1)
5. Con 14 seats (-3)
6. Ind 1 seat (n/c)
This would take pro-independence MSP’s tantalisingly close to the magical 65 seats marker needed for a majority: 42 SNP + 19 Grn + 1 Ind (MacDonald) = 62
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/2008%2001%2017%20Scottish%20Daily%20Express.pdf
http://www.scotlandvotes.com/
http://politicalnewsfromscotland.blogspot.com/2007/12/express-to-back-scottish-independence.html
1. I tend to agree. It’s easy to fiddle with spreadsheets or results predictors and say ‘if the polls are X, then the result will be Y’. Life isn’t that deterministic.
It’s not just personal votes, which could to some extent be illusory - it could simply be the additional exposure that MPs get locally in the media and their communications, it’s fighting the battle. To get to 300 seats, the Conservatives will need to take some places where the party organisation is in a far worse state than it was when those seats were last won in 1992. True, there will be some where it has gone the other way, but it is still a very big ask.
Against that is the tactical vote question. It seems to me that it’s highly unlikely that Lib Dems will continue to tactically vote Labour if the split is 43/33 in the same way they did when it was 33/44 or even 33/36. I don’t believe the bar for parity, majority and workable majority are as high as the predictors would have it.
Even so, a net gain of a hundred seats would be huge: more than any election since 1945, bar 1997. If the economy does hit the (Northern) rocks in the next couple of years, it’s possible; otherwise, anything more than parity with Labour will be an extremely good result for Cameron.
4 - Stuart, I think you’d find that even if ‘pro-independence’ (ie - SNP) MPs gained a majority of seats then all that would lead to is a referendum at which most Scottish voters would then reject independence.
If the SNP is really desperate for a vote on getting out of the UK I suggest it concentrates its efforts on trying to persuade David Cameron to tell his MSPs to allow one. I suspect that DC might agree to this in certain circumstances.
Some Conservatives still need perspective. Even a massive lead in the polls doesn’t guarantee that we’d be able to run the country outright, terrifying as that may be. The Labour implosion must keep rumbling on for years to give us a chance of an overall majority.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
Good to see Brown pop up at the Heathrow crash site… is there no disaster he won’t jump on to give his “This is Britain at it’s best - pulling together” speech.
It’s getting ridiculous - he’ll pop up next to some granny soon whilst her cat is being rescued from a tree…
8 Clark Kent-like, he is a disaster-magent - always around to save us when doom threatens. Our very own super-hero! Hurrah!! When disaster beckons, just look to the skies - and there he is! In a rather crusty, off-green lycra suit - it’s Bogey Man!
My answer to the question posed by the thread is that IMHO the Tories can break the 300 seat mark and there are some excellent betting opportunites
I further predict NuLabour to be in “meltdown” as a result of the next opinion poll mainly due to the deteriorating UK economy led by events in the USA.
The beneficiaries of this will of course be the Tories and LibDems and as usual I shall be putting my money where my mouth is.
In Papua New Guinea, Gordon is called - “Papa Big Crash Not Me Guv” for his formidible hunting skills - it translates as “Man who makes big silver birds fall from the sky”
11 - Don’t be silly, after all the good people of PNG lead lives of blameless bourgeois domesticity in common with the rest of us…..
Very good resume from the blessed Polly today about the forthcoming Lisbon treaty battle in Parliament.
http://tinyurl.com/2f94ab
Some sporting opportunities here? e.g. on the final numbers of Labour w*nkers, sorry rebels, that vote for a referendum amendment? My estimate - not more than 15.
The Toris can get over 300 seats (emphasis on the ‘can’ part). They could get even more, if they put together a convincing policy argument and Labour remains under the skids.
It’s also possible that the Labour Party could stage a minor comeback (I’d be surprised if they had a major one) and retain their place as largest party.
Personally I think Labour will be second largest and the Conservatives largest after the next GE. Hard to say how Clegg will do, but I’d be surprised if he didn’t lose seats (if only because the position he inherits is harder than when Kennedy was in charge: ie no immediate Iraq effect and the Tories are stronger).
5. David Herdson - “To get to 300 seats, the Conservatives will need to take some places where the party organisation is in a far worse state than it was when those seats were last won in 1992.”
That is especially true in Scotland David. Just take a look at the Tory position now in the 11 seats they won in Scotland in 1992. Con seat in 1992 (% Con vote in 1992) - Con vote in Westminster seat now (placing) - Con vote in Holyrood seat now (placing):
Eastwood (47%) - Westminster 2005: 30% (2nd place) - Holyrood 2007: 33% (2nd place)
North Tayside (47%) - 30% (2nd) - 30% (2nd)
Kincardine and Deeside (44%) - 28% (2nd) - 25% (3rd)
Dumfries (43%) - 35% (2nd) - 33% (2nd)
Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (42%) - 35% (2nd) - 44% (1st)
Ayr (41%) - 23% (2nd) - 41% (1st)
Edinburgh Pentlands (41%) - 23% (2nd) - 38% (1st)
Perth and Kinross (40%) - 22% (3rd) - 32% (2nd)
Stirling (40%) - 25% (2nd) - 25% (3rd)
Aberdeen South (39%) - 17% (3rd) - 18% (4th)
Edinburgh West (37%) - 20% (2nd) - 21% (3rd)
In addition the Tories were nipping at the heals in other Scottish seats in 1992, eg. Gordon, where Malcolm Bruce just clinged on for the Liberals by less than 300 votes over the Tories on 37%. Now the Tory vote in Gordon is miniscule in comparison.
Only in bits of southern Scotland is the Tory vote anywhere near the proximity of their 1992 level. Even on a very, very good day indeed it is very hard to see the Tories winning more than 4 seats in Scotland at the next UK general election: 7 less than John Major won in Scotland in 1992. (Major’s majority was just 21.)
So, how does that affect their chances of getting a majority at Westminter? Makes it bloomin difficult I think.
There are several undeniable factors that are all against a Conservative majority of 30+.
1. The sheer scale of winning 140+ seats.
2. The electoral bias against them. Labour should already be in a hung Parliament.
3. The incumbency factor of MPs and the size of the Lib Dems rump.
4. The Conservatives do not yet have the best campaign machinery. They have the resources (cash and people) but not the effective systems and they win council seats in spite of their systems not because of them.
Based on these factors the betting markets seem to have it right with the Conservatives only increasing by 100 to become the biggest party. Although in 2 years time under Ashcroft the campaign machinery should be ahead of the others.
I wonder if, on his trip to China, Gordon will take in a trip to Pyongyang too? It would be interesting to see how the hostile, closed off, irrational, Stalinist bunker-mentality perspective interacts with that of the North Koreans…
15 Yes Stuart Scotland is very difficult for the Conservatives and the moribund Scottish Conservatives languish in the polls. It looks like they have fallen asleep. Not as bad as the decline in the Lib Dems, but maybe a betting market is required on Ms Goldie’s departure?
The battle in Scotland is more about the SNP taking substantial seats off Labour (and some off the Lib Dems) but the latest Yougov Westminster polls indicate that many Labour gains are unlikely.
How are things on the ground Vs Labour, are the SNP adding activists and Labour losing theirs?
Postscript:
Actually, the best chance of a Tory gain north of the border is actually in a constituency they did rather poorly in in 1992: Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. They only got 23% (2nd place) in the mostly corresponding Roxburgh and Berwickshire constituency in 1992; 7511 votes behind the Lib Dems Archy Kirkwood. I must admit that the current Lib Dem incumbent Michael Moore MP really does have all the appearances of a dead politician walking…
‘Can the tories break the 300 barrier?’ the answer (just like betting on a team’s runs) is always yes. So which way to bet? I add and subtract say 60. Are the tories more likely to finish the next GE with 240 seats, or 360? Is GB going to look more competent/popular relative to DC over the next 2 years?
Were the spread firms to do a ‘performance index’ for GB, would you be a buyer or seller? To what extent is the ‘news in the price’?
There are no certainties. But buying looks less risky than selling.
As a strong supporter of a 3rd runway at Heathrow, (I’m with Redwood on this) I hope the idiots, (Zac) take due note of current events.
Interesting piece in the Times on the Pres.Elect.
http://tinyurl.com/3yulry
15. But there also places where the Conservatives have outperformed their national result since 1992. For example, Pendle, Halifax, Copeland, Pembrokeshire S and Carmarthen West, Carlisle, Bradfor West, none of which were won in 1992, would all be Conservative gains if the party won an overall majority.
19 It’s a seat which really *ought* to be Conservative-held.
17. Yes GB could be a very bad influence on them, setting back their process of re-engagement with the outside world by decades.
22 And Poplar and Limehouse.
If Gordon had called the election in November, the Tories would not have broken 300. When it is called in 2010, there is every chance that they will. It has given the necessary extra time for the “Ashdown effect” - the revamp of the organisation, the targeting, the candidates - to make its mark. It pushes the bad memories of the Tories in power further back and allows the economy under Labour to become the central narrative. And it will allow Cameron to be tried and tested - as opposed to Gordon, who is just tired and testy. Electorates are now more volatile than ever, with far fewer party members and nationally, residual party loyalty is ever diminishing. This means bigger swings between elections can be expected.
So 300 in 2007 - no; 300+ in 2010 - very much on the cards. Especially under Gordon.
22. Yes, the Tories could quite conceivably better their 1992 result in Wales - as the recent Assembly elections suggested.
Wow, a UK politics thread!
And not hijacked by any Yanks yet! Wonder how long that’ll last?
I may be being a bit naive here, but I’ve always subscribed to the view that every election starts as a blank canvass - not one candidate has a single vote, or one party a single seat until the votes are cast and the results come in. We hear about Labour incumbency, and the mountain the Tories have to climb, but at the end of the day, if there is massive antipathy (or worse) for Labour, a lot of enthusiasm for Dave and his New Tories, and the Tories get their vote out across the UK - then there is no reason why they can’t win the seats they need.
13 The fact that Labour thinks it can derive any advantage from this issue is yet another example of how out of touch with public opinion it now is.
28 Wow, a UK politics thread!
LOL!
Yep, but the LibDems aren’t about to win 200 seats are thet?
So come on Bob, what do realistically expect the next GE result to look like?
Bob Sykes @ 28 re USA hijack. Sorry.
My conspiracy theory is caught in the spam trap but the New Hampshire recount numbers appear to show that Edwards, Obama and Clinton were each twelve votes out: an incredible coincidence, and not in the good sense of incredible. Note also the votes lost in Manchester Ward 5.
http://www.sos.nh.gov/recountresults.htm
Of course, it is most likely I suck at sums.
8. Robin Wiggs. Have you noticed that wherever that Gordon Brown is, there’s always trouble.
23. Sean Fear - “It’s a seat which really *ought* to be Conservative-held.”
Mmmm…. I assume that you mean if you look at the socio-economics/demographics of the population living there? Well: yes and no! There are lots and lots of very affluent areas of Scotland that you may think “ought” to be rock-solid Tory-voting, and indeed they would be… if they were located in England! But they aren’t, so they don’t
18. HF
Yes and no too! Annabelle Goldie is not as bad as you may think. After Salmond she is miles and away the best party leader in Scotland. The problem is she has very little competent backup in the team around her, which the Tories really cannot do an awful lot about in the short term.
The Scottish Tories decade in the wilderness has actually done them a power of good. They even appear to be quite perky at times. Judging by the gloom and doom on the Lib Dem and Labour benches it will be about another decade before they pull their socks up too. They are in pure Private Fraser mode at present.
In terms of “on-the-ground” I think that it is pretty clear to all and sundry that the SNP are in very robust good humour
I can’t remember the exact numbers, but we recently had a press release announcing yet more new members (I think we are at about 13,000 now). I think the finances and internal organisation are looking pretty rosy too.
Conversely, Labour are in a multitude of problems, most serious of which is probably not the Alexander donation story (soon to come to a climax) but rather their evaporation at local level. They have lost tons of councils and councillors, and are in some rather uncomfortable coalitions at local level, eg with the Tories in Angus, Dundee, East Dunbartonshire and Falkirk (their activists and voters really hate that.)
Other recent Labour self-inflicted disasters include Alexander losing her 2 most senior spin doctors within weeks of each other; and the Labour group at Holyrood going on an all-out attack on the SNP’s abolition of councils’ ring-fencing, while being persistently attacked from the rear by her own senior Labour councillors, who have long loathed ring-fencing.
Nobody knows how many members they have left, or the true state of their finances; but it is bound to be bad. Probably very bad indeed.
One big mistake I made is in believing what Gordon said he was doing in the first announcements he made about the Labour party. I actually fell into the trap of believeing he knew how to lead. (ooops)
Consequently I believed him when the very first things he did was to appoint Alexander for the campaign and appoint Harman over the party. A good CEO would make their top priorities clear in their very first actions. Brown sent the signal that renewal of the party machinery and getting ready for an election was his main priorities.
The reality was far far different and after 4 months of these 2 ineffective clowns, Labour were even further behind the other 2 parties in selecting candidates and preparation for an election.
No wonder they called off the election.
Brown seems to believe that just because he makes an announcement that things will happen. He would have been far better off with Cruddas who just wanted to focus on renewing the party. Harman is just like her husband, people who want the titles but are incapable of focusing on the priorities. Chaos all around them but they do not see it as their job to tackle it.
29. “Political advantage” for Labour? Not at all, the treaty debate is just an important piece of political housekeeping that needs to be dealt with. It isn’t a popular issue, either way.
Those who see a possible political advantage are undoubtedly people like Mr Cash, and Dave has to figure out how to handle him over the next couple of months - and the increasing number of Tory lemmings who now favour total withdrawal from the EU.
26-Mark- I think this post is absolutely right.
A 2007 vote was almost certain to deprive Brown his majority and so it was the right decision to delay. 3 years of a majority is worth much more than 4-5 years of wheeling and dealing.
If Brown hangs on to 2010 I can easily see the Tories setting 300 seats at the lower end of their expectations.
Equally if we go through May/ June 2009 with no improvement in Labour fortunes Brown will not hang around. He is too proud to lead the party into 100 plus losses in 2010. Brown’s hatred of the Tories, and Cameron in particular will make it impossible for him to be seen as the man leading the party into a meltdown.
The likely scenario is that Labour change leader in the spring/ summer 2009, and fight a rearguard action going into 2010 to try and maintain largest party status in a hung Parliament under Miliband.
The 2010 election will be fought by 3 leaders who look, sound, and appear almost indistinguishable, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband. Tweedledum, tweedledee, and tweedlethree.
36. What odds would you like on a change of Labour leader next year Tyson?
33 I have little doubt that over the coming months the spread on Tory seats at the next GE will be priced both above and below the 300 level, which being a short term player I know suits Mike fine - always assuming he gets his bets the right way round as the spread itself can be very expensive if one is dipping into and out of this market.
Ultimately, I doubt the Tories will exceed 300 seats at the actual, real GE. Their best, perhaps only hope of doing so, would be to squeeze the LibDems down to around 25-30 seats which is just possible but unlikely.
The biggest factor as ever - events, Dear Boy, events.
“The likely scenario is that Labour change leader in the spring/ summer 2009″
This remains hugely unlikely. Barring some form of personal scandal (highly unlikely) Brown is there at least to a General Election.
33 Stuart “Nobody knows how many members they have left, or the true state of their finances; but it is bound to be bad. Probably very bad indeed.”
Labour’s Scottish accounts for 2006 said they lost £76,000 and exited with reserves of £180k. No membership levels stated (AFAIK).
In a non-election year a loss of cash on that level is very bad. 2005 produced an £86k surplus, even though they fought a GE!
Looks like things fell apart in 2006 which may explain why they did not succeed in the 07 elections.
28- Bob Sykes- granted there is much resentment now with Labour, but enthusiasm for Cameron and the Tories, questionable. If Cameron was generating real enthusiam he would have huge opinion poll leads, huge, massive favourability ratings, and the press flocking to him.
If Cameron does win an election people will be voting Tory with the enthusiasm they voted for Blair, i.e non, but based rather on hoping that the other party (this time Labour) does not get in.
This is important because it is unlikely that Cameron will enjoy any kind of honeymoon period, and a malaise with a Tory government would set in very quickly, as with Labour post 2005.
I see Branson is part of GB’s delegation, Virgin Rock anyone?
Richard your on a BA flight, hope you’ve got your taster with you!
37 stjohn - that sounds as though you’re giving up on the prospect of Brown leaving office next year. Don’t.
I will be astonished if the Tories win less than 300 seats next time.
Like Labour in the mid-90s, Tory partisans here are downplaying expectations. Hence posts about their organisational shortcomings, etc. Labour’s are far, far greater - there are Labour MPs with only a couple of dozen local activists dotted all over the place. Labour have pusued so many policies that hit their core supporters - increasing taxes for the lower-paid, more and more “workfare”, public sector pay cuts - that it’s perfectly reasonable to wonder how those voters could possibly be worse off under the Tories. Quite how Labour intend to get their people to the polls next time, short of ASBOs, I’ve no idea.
As for the spreads, I wonder if it isn’t just illiquidity. People may like to bet on real elections, rather than playing the numbers as Our Genial Host does, and they’re not ready yet. I expect that the Tories will put on 60 seats during the course of the year, on the back of two or three months’ consistent 12%+ leads in the polls. For those with the nerve, there is real money to be made.
42 Brilliant!
39- James- I cannot see Brown having the stomach to fight an election he will lose big. The thought of phoning Cameron to wish him well, seeing jubilant Tories celebrating would traumatise him for life.
My hesitancy is Brown’s inflated view of his own poltical abilities, and his thinking that he could turn things around, even during a campaign. That may keep him going on blindly.
But if he knew he would lose big, then I am convinced he would walk in good time to give someone else a go.
37-stJohn- if you give me odds of 7-1 I will wager 20 notes (that Labour changes leader in 2009)
40. HF
Thanks. I know that you can get that from the Election Commission website. I was just too lazy to check. I am not sure how much use that financial information is anyway, because London Labour pays for nearly everything anyway. Eg. the Scottish Labour Party only actually employs about 3 people!! The rest are all employed directly via London. He who pays the piper…
If Scottish Labour’s membership, finances and internal organisation were bad in 2006, they must be positively catastrophic in 2008. Can they recover by 2010/2011 though? Seems likely that Scottish Labour are going to have a poor Euro election next year, although maybe not as bad as the Scottish Lib Dems, who could quite conceivably lose their sole Scottish MEP.
43. Peter. I’ve got 16/1 he goes this year which I am quite happy with. If he is still in office by the end of the year, which is likely but by no means certain, I can’t see him going before the election, unless ill health were to intervene. If he did go in 2009 then I still have my Jack Straw voucher at 50/1.
47. “He who pays the piper…”
So we won’t see re-Regulation of the buses in the next SNP manifesto either, then?
Did Brown & Branson fly out yesterday on a scheduled BA service? If so, presumably they were just the one flight away from having been on the ill-fated Boeing 777 - kind of spooky isn’t it?
44 - They have one very good reason to downplay expectations, a good tory win in votes will most likely not translate into a good win in seats. If it was just a matter of percentage vote they’d probably be a lot more gung ho but they know the electoral arithmetic is very much against them.
The 1997 landslide happened and it could happen again in 2009 or 2010.
FWIW, my opinion is that the Tories lost large in 97 because of two factors - the voters had had enough of them and they didn’t believe a word they said anymore. Much as Labour activists would like to believe the voters ‘hated’ the Tories, from my canvassing it was milder, though more determined, than that. Equally, they didn’t ‘love’ Blair and Labour; they thought their hearts were in the right place and deserved a chance to change things.
The question is whether we have mirror circumstances coming up for the next election and I think we do. The voters don’t ‘hate’ Brown or the Labour Party - though many Tory activists would like them to - but they have had enough of them and don’t believe a word they say anymore. Two years is not enough for Brown to turn this around. Similarly, the voters don’t ‘love’ Cameron, but they do warm to his personality and are considering that he deserves a chance to change things.
In these circumstances, UNS swings itself out of the window, incumbency is no protection and only regional factors slow the landslide.
Therefore, my prediction is 340 Tories, 245 Labour, 38 LibDem and 27 others. Tory majority 30.
Brown’s problem with the phantom 07 election and going forward is akin to the spread better trying to work out when to close down a position.
He knows he’s likely to lose a large sum, but has to weigh up the risk of bankruptcy against ’something turning up’. If you’re decisive, you take your losses and move on. If you’re a ditherer, you wait to the last minute. You could get lucky, but the odds are you’ll lose your shirt.
The tories lead in the polls has stabilised and they now look more and more like a government in waiting, able to jostle and push the agenda around to what they want rather than what Labour wants. Brown is incapable at dealing with Cameron, and dealing with problems in general. He ignores anything bad until the last minute that tries to look like he’s acting decisively, inevitably looking the opposite. During a general election Cameron would easily be able to outdo him at everything (imagine the debates on question time!)
[52] Baskerville wrote my prediction is 340 Tories, 245 Labour, 38 LibDem and 27 others. Tory majority 30. I tend to agree as to Tory seats and majority, but would give Labour 20 or so fewer and the Lib Dems 20 or so more - there’s zilch evidence that the Tories nationally are cutting into the Lib Dem vote (as opposed to particular local factors) and the Cleggies are bound to take a handful of seats from Labour. Do you want to defend your 38 LD’s, or were you just using arithmetic?
At PMQs, Brown is regularly using the time-honoured Blair trick of quoting “Highest Employment for x years, lowest inflation for y years, lowest interest rates for z years, etc.”
He should remember that stats can be made to work both ways eg “Highest balance of payments deficit ever, fastest decline in the value of the £ since Wilson, steepest decline in house prices for umpteen years, etc.”
Perhaps the time is fast approaching when Dave should start hurling a few of these back at the shaking claw-fisted one.
22- Carmarthen West and Pembrokeshire South did not exist in 1992. It was calculated as a “notional” Conservative seat and so it counted as a Labour “gain” in 1997.
50 - the plane crashed on landing so there was never any danger!
‘Barring some form of personal scandal (highly unlikely) Brown is there at least to a General Election.’
there’s probably a strong correlation between the probability of a ’scandal’ surfacing and just how bad the poll ratings for Labour get.
55 - That was exactly what Liam Fox was doing on QT - I thought it was the perfect counter to Blair-Brown stat machine at the time, so I wonder if this is party strategy, or just that Fox is a bright chap who has chosen this as his personal approach.
I find Fox quite interesting - it’s amazing that when you show his speeches to an audience of voters who do not know him, he scores brilliantly - when they find out he’s a Tory it drops slightly (though many have guessed already), but when told he is on the right-wing of the party his support plummets. If the right-win of the Tory party want a standard-bearer after Cameron, who does not look like a reversion to Tebbitism, then I think he could be thier man.
Are there odds on next Tory leader?
Good to have an update on the UK spread markets, Mike. And thanks for generously recalling a blunder, despite the pain!
For punters who were not on the site in 2005: Though you’re not likely the go far wrong following Mike’s tips, one of the great things about the site is the warnings which appear when he has miscalculated. There were posts pointing out that, while a few LDs surprise gains were likely, there will simply not enough seats in play to justify backing 65+ with serious money.
Another one I recall was Mike overstating the odds of Brown not succeeding Blair. But, as usual, he was still predicting the market trends better than most - certainly me! - and so probably made money anyway!
41: ‘If Cameron was generating real enthusiam he would have huge opinion poll leads, huge, massive favourability ratings, and the press flocking to him.’
If enthusiam is only shown by a carbon copy of the mid 1990s including the dubious polling.
People don’t need to be enthused about Cameron to vote Tory as long as the alternative is much worse.
57 James, I can see I would have a little difficulty in converting you to become a conspiracy theorist!
62 - Indeed you would, I am an inherently sceptical person!
54. IA unless Clegg starts to target Labour seats aggressively, he will lose a shedload to the Tories, a handful to nationalists and pick up very few from Labour. There will be a lot of voters out there wanting a change of government and many LD MPs who think their constituents love them personally are in for a big surprise. The Labour Party has never been weaker, and the potential for LD candidates to pick up disillusioned lefty votes is enormous. For their sakes, I hope Clegg cottons on to this.
55 Here’s another helpful tip for Mr Brown (well I’m that sort of guy), at PMQs do stop trying to pretend that the inflation rate is only 2%. Everyone in the land knows that this is just a massive, ginormous, elephantine con of the first order and it just makes you sound stupid and sooo out of touch.
64. Add. And the only reason I am not currently selling LD seats at 50 is because I think Clegg may be sharp enough to realise this. If he is, then I will change my prediction.
64/66 I doubt it - Clegg has already clearly demonstrated that his primary target is to be the Tories - let battle commence.
65 British Gas ups prices by 15%, of course inflation is 2 %
Inflation is certainly at 2%, just so long as you exclude most items whose prices are rising sharply.
61 Ralph- People don’t need to be enthused about Cameron to vote Tory as long as the alternative is much worse.
Agree entirely. The problem is that if a party is elected with little enthusiasm it struggles from day one. No honeymoon, no bedding in time. Happened to Thatcher in 79 (saved by the Falklands), Labour 2005, Heath 70, Wilson 74.
I could see a Cameron led Tory government in the mire after 6 months. Similarly, a Lab led coalition. It is hard to see just what could enthuse people at the minute.
IMO People do not hate Labour like the Tories in the 90’s, there will not be that feeling of elation that the buggars have gone. Without this kind of sentiment it is unlikely that Cameron will have any kinmd of honeymoon, and the government will be struggling with managing bad news stories from day 1.
70 All that might well come to pass, but I expect the Labour opposition would be in considerable turmoil if they’d lost 120 or so seats at an election.
And there can be an advantage in being elected half-heartedly. You’re not likley to disappoint expectations in the way Blair did.
53 “During a general election Cameron would easily be able to outdo him at everything (imagine the debates on question time!)”
I don’t think it will be all plain sailing for Cameron in that regard - If you watch his monthly news conference, once the press start to ask questions he seems to suddenly change into a different person, less confident, more prone to ‘ums’ and ‘ahhs’ and can get quite prickly & tetchy at times (when asked about Ashcroft recently he looked like he was starting to get very agitated indeed). The change is visibly noticeable and does seem quite odd to me.
My point is that he hasn’t really been tested in the true public arena and it could go pear-shaped when confronted by the general public as he does have a tendency to glow red. He did well against Davies in the leadership challenge but was infront of a generally responsive audience.
How Brown would do in the same Question Time scenario would also be an interesting hour if he couldn’t keep his anger down.
Such are the vagaries of our electoral system that the next election could produce the most bizarre result in history - a narrow Labour majority on a significantly lower share of the vote tha the Tories. Admittedly this did happen once before, in 1950 I believe, but on that occasion the gap between the parties in terms of share of the vote was very small.
69 You mean like the weekly shop at Tesco, mortgage interest, petrol, utility bills, Council tax, a haircut, a pint of beer, newspapers, etc., etc., etc.
Prices are soaring!
72. But Brown can’t deal with his anger, thats the problem. He can’t take being criticised, it seems to offend him. Cameron may go a little um and ahh during the press conference, but he still comes off as being fairly in control of himself and the issues. Brown is only happy when he controls both of these completely, when things start to go off script he either messes up (an incompetance) or gets annoyed and starts ranting (PMQ’s).
72 jc Perhaps wishful thinking there, as Cameron is a PR pro and is not easily put off his stride. He certainly is getting annoyed by the Ashcroft nonsense and it shows, but that is not a bad thing as he needs to show some fire as he will need it as PM.
On the other hand a straight confrontation would probably leave Brown catatonic, so I wouldn’t expect any face to face debates in the next GE campaign. Even Brown’s minders are not that stupid, are they?
70 What’s more likely to happen with a Cameron victory is relief that the others have gone. Brown benefited from that in July - no more Blair, Reid, Blunkett, Hewitt etc. Public didn’t really recognise Darling, Balls, Alexander, Smith and many others so new faces. Trouble is when summer ended so did the initial enthusiasm, became new boss, same as old boss.
The Conservatives suffered a long unpopularity because they didn’t find new faces after 1997 until end of 2005 - Labour may have same problem if they lose the next election as the new faces of 2007 will be associated with a failed government and will old faces by 2010 anyway. Miliband as Leader of the Opposition doesn’t look a frightening prospect to a PM Cameron - not sure who would be of Gordon’s current front bench.
On thread (sort of) but off-topic. Can it really be true that all the mayoral candidates are against a 3rd runway at Heathrow? (see advert above) I assumed it was just nimbys in Hounslow and tree huggers. Jeez, Frankfurt has 3 Schiphol has 5, Heathrow is at 97% capacity and yesterday’s events are surely all the evidence we need that another runway is desperately needed. Meanwhile palnes circle London waiting for a slot, burning fuel unnecessarily and driving passengers mad.
Forgive the pun, but it is pie in the sky to think we are all going to stop flying any time soon, all that will happen if we insist on strangling Heathrow’s growth is that people (and their money) will fly to other European airports.
BTW I live about 2 miles from Stansted and can’t wait for a 2nd runway there, save me schlepping to Heathrow all the time for long haul. Sadly NIMBYs here are delaying it interminably.
This country is rubbish sometimes.
If it is so certain that the Conservatives are to win the next election.
Why is the current betting Conservatives 3/4 Labour 11/10?
That looks not like a certainty to me.
Looks like the usual group think on here of deterministic Tories, who obviously are not putting their money where their mouth is.
79 That’s clutching at straws if ever I heard it.
[64] Not convinced. (Not that I know how many seats make a “shedload”, come to that.) The LibDems basically fight a “ground war” and AFAIK they are in good shape in local government terms in all the seats they hold bar a handful. The Tories can realistically only expect to win those LD seats where there’s no incumbency or the local LD party has been hollowed out. Can’t see there being more than a dozen of those. Remember that in 2005 both Tories and LDs gained seats, don’t think that had ever happened before.
Clegg’s tactical problem is the small number of Lab/LD marginals - not more than half a dozen, I think.
Anyway, gotta go now.
78 Excellent post and thanks for reminding us of how it is in the real world, rather than in Zak Goldsmith’s world.
82 & 79 What yesterday showed was that the new London Airport at Maplin should have been built and be operational now - imagine engine failure over the Central London flight paths - 777 coming down on housing or office blocks, even yesterday it could have hit the housing a minute earlier on its approach. Stuck now building a third runway at an airport that is in the wrong place
79/80 - notwithstanding the partisan gibe at the end, surely dez has a point, Sean?
Either the next election is still very much in the balance, or there’s a big value bet out there.
79 Looks like the usual group think on here of deterministic Tories ….
You mean like stjohn and Innocent Abroad, both non-Tories, who think Cameron & Co. will exceed 300 seats and me, a Tory, who is equally convinced they will not!
Interesting article on realclearpolitics entitled “The Problem with Internet Pundits”. Not an edifying description of ourselves, the bloggers. We are reportedly the “mediacracy” that has made the quality of our civic discourse not better but worse.
75 You seem to imply that by criticising Cameron I must support Brown and you feel you must therefore launch an attack on the PM. I personally don’t think its in Labour’s long-term interest to secure a fourth term as the Conservative’s showed us between 1997 and 2005 what happens if you stretch the democratic elastic too far. But that aside, my point is that Cameron does indeed seem ‘fairly in control of himself and the issues’ when speaking on his own terms but I have reservations that when confronted by a questioning public panel, that same PR savvy approach may go wrong. There was a young lady on Question Time last night who tried to take the Conservative panelists to task over what she thought was ‘vacuous’ sniping at the government. Although Brown is deeply unpopular, that view of the current conservative party is very real and Cameron needs to confront it head on.
84 What’s your guess Aaron,next GE seats-wise, as a matter of interest?
For those who haven’t been watching. Labour are already recovering…
Seat forecast based on rolling average of polls…
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/bigpic.jpg
Seat lead Con or Lab
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/seatlead.jpg
The forecast Tory seats has fallen about 20 in the past month (330 down to 310).
73% of the time since 2005 Labour has been ahead in forecasted seats.
Remember, we are now deep in the mid-term - past the half-way point in fact. The odds are Labour will recover further, barring major disasters.
I imagine December 2007 will mark the high-water mark of Tory fortunes. The Tories are not doing well-enough even in the polls (this site’s apparently-preferred indicator) to think otherwise. When we turn to real votes in real elections, the picture is worse for the Tories.
I’d estimate the most likely outcome of the next election as
Lab 310
Con 255
LD 50
Nats 15
NI 13 (SF abstain)
I’d put a range of +/-15 seats on Con/Lab, and +/5 on the LDs, with a slight bias towards the Tory upside.
However, the Tories have a very good chance of winning the UK popular vote, and of being the largest party in seats in England, which would I suppose be a moral victory of sorts..
87. good point well made, it was a pretty vicious attack by that young lady. My personal thought as a defence on that should be is that we can’t promise what we don;t know we have. We haven’t been told how much of taxpayers money has been spent on northern rock, we don;t know what the books look like but if and when we get in to Government judging by the state of the budget deficit we expect them to be a mess and our first job will be sorting out the public finances in a responsible way
81 - Clegg’s tactical problem is the small number of Lab/LD marginals - not more than half a dozen, I think.
You only create the Lab/LD marginals for 2014 (or whenever) by fighting hard in the seemingly safe (c. 10k majority) seats this time. Plus you might pick up the odd Withington-type result this time around.
Even allowing for the fact that the LDs are closer politically to Labour than the Conservatives, it would be tactically inept to spend a second successive election indulgently targeting the Opposition [e.g. decapitation] rather than an unpopular government.
If the long-term aim of the LDs is to become the principal Opposition and subsequently to aspire to government [is it? - it doesn’t have to be], then they have to look to displace Labour. To do that they need to start making real inroads into the swathes of safe Labour seats in their northern urban heartlands.
73 You are doubly confused in your facts. It was 1951, not 1950 and it was the Tories who sqeaked a narrow majority despite being behind Labour in the popular vote.
89 I imagine December 2007 will mark the high-water mark of Tory fortunes.
Rod - I hope you’re right, at least in the short term you understand!
What has impressed me is just how well the Labour vote has held up around the 33% mark, despite their tumultuous problems of late and I just do’t see it getting any worse for them.
84 - I think the spreads are pretty close to the mark, Peter - maybe Con 310, Labour 255, LD 55 ?
Personally my big position is pro-hung parliament, and also LDs under 62.5, the two of which are a partial hedge against each other (though I hope to win both!) A few months back I switched my “worst-case” scenario from a Tory majority to a Labour one.
Being Welsh, I find it surprising how different fortunes have been for the Tories in Wales and Scotland in recent years. At the next election the Tories could fairly realistically win 7/8 seats, whereas as we have heard, in Scotland it’s more like 2. What’s more the Tories almost got into government in Wales and have increased their representation at every assembly election. Funny how things go isn’t it.
Anyone have any ideas as to why this might be so?
89. RodCrosby. I see there is £130 available to sell Tory seats on Spreadfair at seat levels between 300-302.4 seats. Nearly £5K up for grabs there for you!
80.
Sean I remember at times Labour in 2005 were 18-1 on being the largest party, and still people kept saying there was a chance for the Conservatives .
Now thats what I call cluching at straws not a nearly even money bet.
‘There was a young lady on Question Time last night who tried to take the Conservative panelists to task over what she thought was ‘vacuous’ sniping at the government.’
Does she post on here occasionally?
89
‘When we turn to real votes in real elections, the picture is worse for the Tories.’
Like last year’s local elections when the Tories picked up + 1,000 seats?
91 Agreed, but that doesn’t appear to be Clegg’s aim - perhaps he thinks that if he remains nice to Gordon, he might be able to force through PR in a hung Parliament.
100 - I don’t know, using his first two PMQs to discuss fuel prices and repossessions is suggestive of his designs on traditional Labour voters, imo.
re 89. If that’s your view then there is fantastic value for you on the spread betting markets. Get betting on Labour. I have yet to be convinced by both your seat calculator and your rolling average approach - it seems designed to support your personal view-point.
94 Thanks for that Aaron.
O/T I noticed last night, in the early hours, Ladbrokes shortened on Hillary for Nevada - was this the night porter or you?
93. Peter. With Northern Rock and its alleged linkage to the election that never was; the drip drip drip characterisation of Brown the Ditherer; Economic uncertainty; Haingate and Donorgate all continuing to feed into the public consciousness, why should we have reached an upward turning point for Labour?
103 - I’m no longer at Ladbrokes, PfP - I now work at bet365 (where thankfully I don’t do the politics prices).
Ladbrokes now has a 24-hour trading operation so I expect the night shift noticed some bets on Hillary and tweaked accordingly.
99. Silly! - only contests where the Tories do badly count.
102. ‘it seems designed to support your personal view-point.’ Never!
99. Yes, on tiny turnouts, Labour voters staying at home in droves, those who bothered to vote doing so largely on local issues… Tells us nothing, really…
You may as well say a 7.2% swing to the Tories in the Euro election, 2004 was a harbinger of the “Great Conservative Victory of 2005…” Only for the birds, I’m afraid..
+ to 102 when you are betting on these things you have to totally detach yourself from the outcome you would like. You have to have real rigour to avoid only using data that supports your views.
I have stopped betting on the Lib Dems because after what happened on
May 5th 2005 I know I cannot trust my judgement. When it comes to Labour and the Tories I switch all the time between them. It is so much easier if you are less emotionally involved.
70 - surely honeymoon or no, a Cameron government would deal with bad news the same way Labour did for 8 years - i.e. ignore it save to say it’s “the fault of the last government”
30: “So come on Bob, what do realistically expect the next GE result to look like?”
Buggered if I know. I’m not feeling much “love” for the Tories in my neck of the woods (with its plentiful supply of must win seats), and it’s worse north of where I am. I think we could end up with a heavily split country with the Tories sweeping all before them in and south of the Midlands, patchier performance in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and no progress at all north of that. Wales will see some progress.
I can’t see any of that being enough for a Tory majority, but the Tories will win the largest vote share nationally by some margin.
I would like to think it will be enough for a minority Tory Government, as there would be outrage and possibly civil insurrection if a Tory Party winning 39-40% of the vote was prevented from taking office by our biased electoral geography and a filthy deal between Broon and Cleggy Boy, followed by a second attempt at securing a working majority 12-18 months down the line.
I guess we need to see the poll ratings actually meeting the mood on the ground, and nationwide. Until that happens, I won’t be expecting a Tory majority. Not next time.
107
I see these were not ‘real’ elections because the turnouts were low and the results did not meet your personal view-point.
So as local,mayoral & Euro elections all have much smaller turnouts than GE’s which ‘real’ elections are you referring to?
Nevada: Two new polls today, showing Hillary in the lead by 5 (Zogby - unreliable) and by 9 (Mason-Dixon - reliable). This is good enough for me and I’ve taken some. She will come in during the day, so be quick.
103. The question is if the big union endorsement is Obama’s, if Edwards is surging, how is Hillary holding fairly ok leads?
I’m of the view that by now only the vagaries of the caucus system could lose it for Clinton but I’m of the view that whilst many within Edwards camp are Obama backers much of his ground level support who’d vote in an open ballot is not.
The question then is, who of Edwards support is likely to turn out to a caucus?
I personally wouldnt touch Hillary below evens though I tipped her to win and got a little bit on at odds against.
89 Rod Crosby “Remember, we are now deep in the mid-term - past the half-way point in fact. The odds are Labour will recover further, barring major disasters.”
Rod I agree with you that a hung parliament is highly likely but totally disagree with the above.
We had a whole thread on “mid term polling” and the evidence was not in favour of a recovery by the Govt.
Labour are bobbing along at 32 and 33. Just above the rock bottom level of 30. Should they start registering in the 20s then a Conservative majority will look more certain.
With a Govt Of All The Incompetents, (GOATIs) there could be further to fall.
111. Ones with higher turnout’s where the electors are more more focussed on national issues - i.e. parliamentary by-election, which have been far and away the best guide to general elections since the advent of mass suffrage…
O/T The PB ten to follow syndicate is in joint 16th place (21 points behind leader) in the monthly £10,000 prize. And we have a line in 139th place as well. Not sure whether it was Hi Cloy yesterday (25 points) that made the difference.
104 stjohn - I’m not sure that Haingate, Donorgate or even Northern Rock play that big a part in the public’s psyche and anyway they’re all already out there.
What people are worried about is inflation (although not on this clearly very affluent site apparently), plus the cost of their two weeks holiday in the sun, which seems destined to be 15% more expensive than last year.
I have to say however that you always make me feel nervous about my buy on Labour seats - just as well I have that nice footy profit buffer!
83: True Heathrow isn;t ideally situated, but a 3rd runway will cause less disruption than a whole new airport.
Re-reading your post, i think you think that too!
I was in China last year, in February and also November, in the intervening period a whole new terminal sprang up at Pudong, it was only foundations in Feb, opening any day now. Plenty of room for several runways as well. Mind you they don’t tend to bother with public enquiries overmuch!
116 Eh?!! Well spotted that man! I missed that.
I’ll get a report out.
re 115. The problem with by elections in recent years is that they have not been focussed on national issues. The parties, particularly the Lib Dems, have discovered what can be a winning formula in finding a good local issue to exploit and then making that the core matter that people are voting on. Labour respond by nasty character assassination as we saw in Hodge Hill and Hartlepool. The Tories simply have not got it.
There’s also the issue of national media coverage. By election used to be major national news event with a number of national journalists dispatched to the area for the duration and even, remember them, daily press conferences. Those of us who are old enough to remember will recall the wonderful role that my old BBC colleague Vincent Hanna played in the 1980s.
Because this has changed I don’t think they are anything like as good a guide to the national mood nowadays.
114. Sorry, but the thread you refer to, while interesting, was logically tenuous. It proved nothing either way.
Tories recovered at elections 1979-1997 [Yes, but they were they government, recovering from severe mid-term unpopularity]
Labour didn’t “recover” 1997-2005 [Yes, but they were never unpopular, so couldn’t “recover” something they hadn’t lost…]
Labour’s position 1997-2005 was an electoral aberation, which occurred only because the Tories during that period were heading for oblivion. By installing Cameron, the Tories recoiled at the edge of the cliff, and yes, have turned themselves around somewhat, for people to even consider them as an alternative. An analogy would be Labour 1983.
We are now back in the old pattern of government unpopularity, followed by recovery…
72. It certainly would be interesting to see how Brown would fare on Question Time. I’m not talking a Brown Vs Cameron thing here, but just a general Brown on QT thing. I find it outrageous and concerning that our Prime Minister hasn’t appeared on Question Time since the general election of 1997. He’s been Chancellor for ten years and PM for over 6 months, yet still he refuse’s to listen and debate with the general public? What is this guy afraid of?
120 - I agree that by-elections are less of a guide than used to be, but I think that another explanation could be that there are simply less of them than in the past.
95 Matt I think the difference for the Conservative Party in Scotland was that up until the 60’s it wasn’t there - the Scottish Unionist Party was. In Churchill’s 1951 manifest is the line “The Unionist policy for Scotland, including the practical steps proposed for effective Scottish control of Scottish affairs, will be vigorously pressed forward.” Sounds like devolution doesn’t it? While that party still existed the “Conservatives” became the biggest party in Scotland.
So in Scotland the Unionists (along with National Liberals/Liberal Unionists) were the semi-nationalist presbyterian centre-right party, the Conservatives an English party. When under that very English Ted Heath the Unionists were absorbed and the Conservatives became an Great British Party (NI retaining Unionist) the big tent of nationalists, working class Orange Order, Liberal Unionist/National Liberals was broken. The subsequent election of Thatcher didn’t help nor did Conservative opposition to devolution, a policy that they had supported against Labour earlier.
“We are now back in the old pattern of government unpopularity, followed by recovery…”
And the evidence for this, is….?
120. Yes, but it’s all a bit tautologous, Mike. It’s Tory weakness that has allowed the LDs to move in, even threatening Tory seats, combined with no real mood for change. And however you slice it, weak parties don’t win government.
The evidence of 1997-2001 and 2001-5 does not bear out your statement that by-elections have lost their predictive ability. In terms of the relative standing between Lab and Con (which broadly under FPTP is all that matters, swing being the determinant of elections) by-elections remain excellent predictors and would have accurately forecast the last two elections.
I would love a by election in a seat like mine in Bedford with a strong Lib Dem organisation but where the Tories are in second place…and we have Barry!!
I think the LDs would jump from 3rd to 1st place. At the general election I’m expecting the Tories to be in with a good chance of taking it.
Interesting article in Realclear which is worth reading re: an important strand and perhaps under-considered one in the Democrat base.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/white_working_class_will_matte.html
The polls show the tories steadily ahead, with labour bumping around 33%, and that was after the massive Brown re-launch, and before Hain’s an incompetance.
re 126 Rod, the evidence in each of the past 3 years is that in overall terms the Lib Dems are losing the battles with Conservatives be it the General Election or council elections.
120. Mike I agree. We also used to get regular opinion polls at the by elections which never happens now.
98. Harry, I assume you mean me. No I’m male. I don’t care if the person doing the ‘vacuous snipping’ is Conservative, Labour, LD or whatever - they are all as bad as one another if they do it. It is not as constructive as a rational argument. In fact not constructive at all.
Last couple of days have been pretty civilised however.
I don’t think I’m occassional. I’ve been a regular since 2005. Read it just about every day, umpteen times a day, although sometimes don’t have time for posts, but I must have made many hundreds of posts by now with regular correspondances in particular with Andrea, Jack W and Sean.
Clinton has been cut today from 6/5 into 4/7 for the Nevada primary by vc.bet. Still evens with Ladbrokes. Odds on with Betfair. Buy price 1.64.
127. Quite possibly. But winning Bedford in a GE doesn’t guarantee or presage a Tory majority, or even largest party status. And if the Tories couldn’t win it in a by-electio