politicalbetting.com

Is this the first polling move in the post-Ken world?

In a number commentaries ahead of the May 1st London mayoral election I questioned whether the telephone pollsters were over-stating Ken’s support because of the way they calculated voting certainty. In fact it was this element that caused me to maintain a big betting position on the Tory even when the phone polling firms had Ken ahead.

For it was clear from the turnout history of previous mayoral races that the phone pollsters had far too many in their samples saying they were certain to vote and this, I argued, was skewing their figures. And the tendency, as was shown in the final results, was to overstate Labour and Ken.

For the problem is always that when asked how certain it is that respondents will vote a number like to show they are good citizens by rating themselves 10/10 when they probably won’t bother.

As was touched on here a couple of days ago when looking at the detail of the ICM Crewe and Nantwich poll the firm had adopted a different way of asking about voting certainty and of calculating its suggested vote shares.

In the new approach ICM asked about people’s attitude to voting itself and then weighted their turnout score in line with those answers. So three options were offered - whether they considered that it was their duty to vote; whether respondents should only vote if they cared who won, or whether it was really not worth doing at all. So those only who rated themselves 10/10 and agreed with the first option were given the highest turnout rating.

This increased the Tory share by 1% and decreased the Labour one by 1%. So the Tory lead of Labour was 2% up on what it would have been using ICM’s previous approach.

The interesting thing now is whether ICM will continue with this and what the other pollsters will do. We know that Ipsos-MORI is examining its methodology. ICM has always shown itself ready to adapt in the light of experience. After the 1992 polling debacle it brought in past vote weighting which now all but MORI follow.

So could the attitude to voting test become the standard? Possibly - and the effect is likely to be to increase marginally Tory shares and to depress Labour ones.

For those who follow the polls in their gambling this could be critical. A two point difference could have a big impact on the number of Commons seats won.

Mike Smithson

Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin is predicting a big announcement tonight. Could it be that John Edwards has come off the fence and is going to endorse Barack? Or could this be the start of something bigger - an Obama-Edwards ticket?

The website Political Insider is making a strong case for Edwards who was , of course, the V-P nominee in 2004.

We shall see.

Mike Smithson

Could Miss Great Britain affect the by election outcome?

One of the “other” candidates who might have an impact on Crewe and Nantwich is Gemma Garrett - Miss Great Britain. On the face of it the move seems like a PR stunt designed to boost her profile but, to her credit, she has started to campaign and has already got into a spat with Labour.

Gemma says she is about “bringing beauty into politics and turning back the tide of sleaze”. She’s furious about stories she says Labour is putting about that she made a spelling mistake when she signed the book of condolences for Gwyneth Dunwoody.

According to the Crewe Guardian she said: “This is precisely the low, petty and underhanded sort of action which contributes to the overall impression that politics is a sleazy and grubby business. It is ironic that Labour, which is supposed to cherish the rights of women, created this cheap, wrong and stereotypical image of me intended to suggest that any girl who happened to be blonde and to look good cannot spell.”

Gemma’s getting a lot of publicity and could easily get a reasonable vote which in a tight contest might affect the outcome - the question is who is she going to hurt most? Given the apparent lower motivation to vote amongst Labour supporters then there is a danger that on the margin more of them could be tempted to switch than Tory supporters.

Latest Crewe betting.

Mike Smithson

Surely it’s time for the curtain to close on the Dimbleby era?

Just under a fortnight ago I had a rant about the woeful inadequacies of the BBC’s election coverage and many others have joined the criticism. The antics of Jeremy Vine have been the main focus but these were singled out as an example that something is going badly wrong.

Since then we have two more impressive US primary election nights on CNN and the more you see their output that the more you realise how TV licence payers in the UK are being short-changed. This is an area, of course, where the Corporation’s public service role should be most apparent - covering the democratic process and elections.

Since then I have been pondering on how the BBC should go forward to provide coverage that it can be proud of and it struck me that a key figure is the anchor person - someone with the political skills and expertise as well as being an effective broadcaster able to think on his/her own feet.

There is one name that immediately springs to mind - Andrew Neil who currently anchors what I consider to be the best political shows on the BBC - “The Daily Politics” and “This Week”. He’s the one who could hold an election programme together and simply would not put up with the second, or even fifth rate that is now served up for us.

Neil is a former editor of the Sunday Times and is the editor-in-chief of the Barclay brothers Press Holdings group of newspapers.

Just watching his handling today of the follow-up to yesterday’s Ali D’s statement, PMQs and then Brown’s “pre-Queen’s speech” and you see someone with the competence and the political understanding who could underpin the big BBC political occasions.

The rubbish that the BBC currently serves up to us on election nights has to stop. They should appoint Neil now and plan for a different and substantially better future.

Mike Smithson

C&N punters mount their own U-turn

Yesterday evening, less than two hours after Darling’s commons statement on the tax U-turn I published a chart here under the headline “Darling gives Labour a boost in the Crewe betting“.

This has been picked up in the media and on a number of other sites and presented as an instant verdict on what Brown and Darling did yesterday.

Well after consideration the markets have returned to almost exactly where they were 24 hours ago.

This is probably as a result of the way the media has dealt with Darling’s commons statement. For ministers have had to cope with their own words of only a few weeks ago being played back to them repeatedly. U-turns never look good because it raises question marks about your judgement in the first place.

And this has been picked up by the markets as can be seen above. The chart, itself, shows the changes in the betting odds reflected as an implied probability.

Mike Smithson

But do these final primaries matter at all?

After her expected huge victory in the predominantly white working class state of West Virginia Hillary Clinton was in upbeat mood overnight and made it clear that she is still striving to become the next president.

This is her biggest victory so far yet the mood of the commentators was that it was irrelevant. Only 28 delegates were at stake, the outcome had been widely predicted, and Obama’s quiet campaign amongst the super delegates continues to pay dividends.

As the Associated Press analysis put it - West Virginia does not solve her central problem: ” Since her loss in North Carolina and narrow victory in Indiana last Tuesday, the New York senator has been battling the growing realization that her once-formidable candidacy may have finally run out of steam. Saddled with more than $20 million in debt and struggling to fund the remaining contests, Clinton has watched a steady stream of superdelegates migrate toward the Illinois senator despite his apparent problems winning key constituencies.”

One thing she has had to do is to be more guarded in her attacks on Obama. For the one way of forcing the party establishment to step in is if her effort is seen to be damaging their overall interests.

In the betting on who wins in November Obama is still the clear favourite.

Mike Smithson