|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Oct 16, 2023 18:27:41 GMT
I see that here, and elsewhere, we have reached a stage of Labour and the LibDems sniping at each other over who had the 'right' to be the challenger here, who has said what in their election materials, and whether the voting system is fair. So I infer that neither side is confident of winning (although perhaps both are confident of beating the Cons? And that would be great of course). One or both sides are going to be disappointed by Friday morning. So the question I'd ask as an outsider whose optimal outcome is the Cons getting as widely hammered as possible is, 'What are you going to do about it?' Whether you win, lose to the others (LD/Lab), or let the Cons slip through the middle, what are you going to do to minimise the chances of this happening again, perhaps in many seats? Electoral "pacts" or "understandings" don't usually work. In 1997, there was no pact - the electorate made their own pact voting forn the candidate most likely in their view to defeat an incumbent Conservative. It wasn't perfect nor 100% accurate but effective. The amout of work done on the ground in a constituency is a clue but not just in the election campaign - it's the record of activity over the preceding months and years which establishes the credibility of the challenger not six frantic weeks before polling day. I quite agree, but the voters in recent by elections have shown that they are quite interested in being able to give their vote to whoever is best placed to defeat the Cons. So that can be helped along without any formal pacts or alliances. In fact, I'd say that the LibDem by election literature, with its requests to 'lend' a vote to the LibDems, implicitly acknowledges that. I am a former LibDem, and my ideal result on Thursday would be a LibDem win with Labour second, but the protestations of many LibDems here and elsewhere really ring hollow to me. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by YL on Oct 17, 2023 7:19:13 GMT
I see that here, and elsewhere, we have reached a stage of Labour and the LibDems sniping at each other over who had the 'right' to be the challenger here, who has said what in their election materials, and whether the voting system is fair. So I infer that neither side is confident of winning (although perhaps both are confident of beating the Cons? And that would be great of course). One or both sides are going to be disappointed by Friday morning. So the question I'd ask as an outsider whose optimal outcome is the Cons getting as widely hammered as possible is, 'What are you going to do about it?' Whether you win, lose to the others (LD/Lab), or let the Cons slip through the middle, what are you going to do to minimise the chances of this happening again, perhaps in many seats? I share your view of the Conservatives and will find it a bit frustrating if they hold this seat with a vote share in the low 30s (which I think is quite possible) but I think that if the opposition parties behave reasonably rationally towards each other there are not actually that many seats where this would be repeated in a General Election. Most of the seats which look like sensible targets for the Lib Dems are the sort of seats which Labour are unlikely to take very seriously anyway, so as long as parties concentrate their resources in places which they think they can win the two parties shouldn't actually get in each other's way that much. Exceptions might include Wimbledon and a handful of new seats where it's not immediately clear who the challenger might be: St Neots & Mid Cambs, Bicester & Woodstock, Frome & East Somerset, maybe the revised Mid Sussex. (I've seen projections of several of those as close to three-way ties; the current Election Maps UK "nowcast" shows the Tories holding Frome & E Som on 28.9% of the vote and Labour taking St Neots & Mid Cambs on 29.7%.) But out of 650 seats that really isn't very many, and the scenario that's giving those seats as three way ties has the Tories around or below their 1997 seat total. |
|
|
|
Post by bigfatron on Oct 17, 2023 7:34:58 GMT
Two of my daughters live in St Neots- from what I have seen there I am staggered the BMG MRP have Labour ahead of the Lib Dems in that seat, the alternative MRP that had this as a Lib Dem/Tory marginal seems much more likely to me.
On the flip side, some projections appear to have the London Cities seat and Finchley as potentials for the Lib Dems, which is laughable.
I agree that the two parties have a handful of seats that they will rightly both fight; but generally there are enough good opportunities for everyone...
|
|
cjohn
Non-Aligned
Posts: 6
|
Post by cjohn on Oct 17, 2023 7:36:22 GMT
The best thing about this by-election from a betting point of view has been the extremely poor quality of both constituency polls.
The first produced ludicrously high support for Reform and Mackie. And probably was over-concentrated in the part of constituency which Mackie represents.
The second had such a small N, that all three main parties were possible leaders at that point, particularly before don't knows were eliminated. And this was not mentioned in reporting in national media.
So I'm delighted to be long on Labour at 5 and long on LDs at 5.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2023 7:43:42 GMT
Dad lives in Bedford and often travels through here and his friend in Houghton Regis was pretty bullish about Labour's prospects of taking it. I will ask him whether he thinks that's still likely. Funnily enough, I met the Tory candidate when I was at school. I was taking part in the Milton Keynes Schools' Parliamentary Debating Competition and Festus was working with then MP Mark Lancaster then. He also ran an internship of sorts with Milton Keynes, Buckingham and Aylesbury Conservatives which I took part in in August 2015. He was very enthusiastic about Zac Goldsmith running for London Mayor then (wonder what happened to him). He also talked about how he had increased the Tory vote share in West Ham in 2015 after it had been "declining for years" IIRC. That isn't true of course, but he did get a slight uptick in the Tory vote in West Ham when he stood. He seems like a decent enough candidate having won the PCC race. I think for the Tories, Bedford Mayor Tom Wootton may have been stronger, but Festus is a decent enough pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 17, 2023 8:03:18 GMT
The best thing about this by-election from a betting point of view has been the extremely poor quality of both constituency polls. The first produced ludicrously high support for Reform and Mackie. And probably was over-concentrated in the part of constituency which Mackie represents. The second had such a small N, that all three main parties were possible leaders at that point, particularly before don't knows were eliminated. And this was not mentioned in reporting in national media. So I'm delighted to be long on Labour at 5 and long on LDs at 5. I’ve lost track of (a.k.a. I have forgotten) when were those polls, and what were the results of those opinion polls? And are there any obvious concerns about the methodology or by whom they were conducted? |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Oct 17, 2023 8:21:03 GMT
I see that here, and elsewhere, we have reached a stage of Labour and the LibDems sniping at each other over who had the 'right' to be the challenger here, who has said what in their election materials, and whether the voting system is fair. So I infer that neither side is confident of winning (although perhaps both are confident of beating the Cons? And that would be great of course). One or both sides are going to be disappointed by Friday morning. So the question I'd ask as an outsider whose optimal outcome is the Cons getting as widely hammered as possible is, 'What are you going to do about it?' Whether you win, lose to the others (LD/Lab), or let the Cons slip through the middle, what are you going to do to minimise the chances of this happening again, perhaps in many seats? I share your view of the Conservatives and will find it a bit frustrating if they hold this seat with a vote share in the low 30s (which I think is quite possible) but I think that if the opposition parties behave reasonably rationally towards each other there are not actually that many seats where this would be repeated in a General Election. Most of the seats which look like sensible targets for the Lib Dems are the sort of seats which Labour are unlikely to take very seriously anyway, so as long as parties concentrate their resources in places which they think they can win the two parties shouldn't actually get in each other's way that much. Exceptions might include Wimbledon and a handful of new seats where it's not immediately clear who the challenger might be: St Neots & Mid Cambs, Bicester & Woodstock, Frome & East Somerset, maybe the revised Mid Sussex. (I've seen projections of several of those as close to three-way ties; the current Election Maps UK "nowcast" shows the Tories holding Frome & E Som on 28.9% of the vote and Labour taking St Neots & Mid Cambs on 29.7%.) But out of 650 seats that really isn't very many, and the scenario that's giving those seats as three way ties has the Tories around or below their 1997 seat total. Earley & Woodley perhaps too |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 17, 2023 8:23:21 GMT
Fuller figures and tables for the Survation poll: www.survation.com/mid-bedfordshire-by-election-update/It appears that all declared candidates were prompted for. Akinbusoye (Con) 29% Strathern (Lab) 29% Holland-Lindsay (Lib Dem) 22% Holland (Reform UK) 7% Mackey (Ind) 6% Victor (True and Fair) 4% Sibley (Green) 2% Answering my own question, the Survation poll was a month ago, and doesn’t look reliable because it’s got 4% for the so-called “True and Fair” Party - and it’s a month out of date anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 17, 2023 8:24:53 GMT
According to the Telegraph Opinium has a poll which shows Labour winning the seat. Numbers behind a paywall. Hmm - I guess on certain to vote, over those who have selected a candidate, so much pinching of salt: Labour 28% Cons 24% Ind 19% LD 15% Reform 10% Answering my own question, the Opinium poll doesn’t look reliable because it’s 3 months old and has the Independent candidate in 3rd place with 19% |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 17, 2023 8:28:56 GMT
A lot of those three-way marginals are near to much better targets for both Labour and the LDs, so it's quite possible that neither contender resources them sufficiently to let the electorate decided who the main challenger is, because they're concentrating on seats that are easier to win. As fun as it would be to push the Tories below 100 seats, Labour's priority is to win a secure working majority and the LD priority is to win their first couple of tranches of targets. The seats that would produce 450 Labour MPs or 60 LD MPs are not nearly as useful to them.
|
|
cjohn
Non-Aligned
Posts: 6
|
Post by cjohn on Oct 17, 2023 8:57:40 GMT
The Survation poll had a very small sample of just over three hundred who gave a positive opinion i.e don't knows + refused to say eliminated.
This is pretty worthless as a reliable indicator of the relative position of the three mai n partiesgiven the very large margin of error.
On that poll you can only safely say Mackie + Greens are out of it. Yet that poll was the cause of the surge in hopes of Labour and writing off of LDs. Amazing LDs at 5!
Plus did the company sample from every part of the constituency equally. Doubt it.
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,345
|
Post by graham on Oct 17, 2023 11:30:34 GMT
The Tories are now Odds on with Betfair and SMarkets
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,727
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Oct 17, 2023 11:45:38 GMT
The Tories are now Odds on with Betfair and SMarkets Based on what? I assume, bets laid. |
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,620 
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Oct 17, 2023 11:53:46 GMT
Take this with a pinch or a bucket load of salt, and we shall see on Thursday, but Christopher Hope from the Telegraph says
‘interesting to hear senior Tory and Labour figures yesterday forecast a double Tory win on Thursday’.
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,345
|
Post by graham on Oct 17, 2023 12:04:20 GMT
Take this with a pinch or a bucket load of salt, and we shall see on Thursday, but Christopher Hope from the Telegraph says ‘interesting to hear senior Tory and Labour figures yesterday forecast a double Tory win on Thursday’. Indeed - most politicians are not very psephologically aware. |
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Oct 17, 2023 12:04:27 GMT
The Tories are now Odds on with Betfair and SMarkets Based on what? I assume, bets laid. I think the assumption, correctly or not, is that the Tories have a reasonably high floor here and that they could only lose if either Labour or Lib Dem emerged as a clear challenger. |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,727
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Oct 17, 2023 12:06:45 GMT
Take this with a pinch or a bucket load of salt, and we shall see on Thursday, but Christopher Hope from the Telegraph says ‘interesting to hear senior Tory and Labour figures yesterday forecast a double Tory win on Thursday’. Given the size of the majorities, it wouldn't seem unlikely for the Tories to hold both, but it might be a mix of Tory hops and Labour expectation management - also an encouragement by the latter to get out every vote. |
|
cjohn
Non-Aligned
Posts: 6
|
Post by cjohn on Oct 17, 2023 12:11:23 GMT
I've followed the conversation on this board and Political Betting. And also kept up to date with pronouncements from the three parties.
The truth is any supposed indicators of what's going on have been pretty worthless. The two polls were very poor. And the objectivity of anything the parties have said is compromised by their own desire to win, even when they are telling the truth about how they see progress.
"Eyewitness accounts" are even less valuable. As no one knows the biaises of the "witnesses".
Lab at 5 and LDs at 5 are both excellent value bets. The Tories didn't get near the minimum price I wanted on them.
All that can be said is all three have a shout. So any bet well above 3 is worth doing. In my case 5 was the level I chose.
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,620
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Oct 17, 2023 12:23:09 GMT
Based on what? I assume, bets laid. I think the assumption, correctly or not, is that the Tories have a reasonably high floor here and that they could only lose if either Labour or Lib Dem emerged as a clear challenger. Yes, you’d think the Tories would almost certainly hold if they got 35%. They might even hold if they got 30% |
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,620
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Oct 17, 2023 12:37:40 GMT
Just looking in the drops in Tory shares in the 8 by elections that they have defended in this parliament ( excluding Southend West)
Chesham and Amersham 19.9
North Shropshire 31.1
Old Bexley and Sidcup 13
Wakefield 17
Tiverton and Honiton 21.7
Selby and Ainsty 26
Somerton and Frome 29.6
Uxbridge and S Ruislip 7.4
The average drop there is 20.7%. If you take out the 2 London holds its 24.2%
In Mid Beds they are starting on 59.8%. So the average drop would get them 39.1% or the average excluding the 2 London holds would get them 35.6%. I imagine they would hold with those 2 percentages. If they dropped by the same percentage as Selby, they would get 33.8%- they’d probably hold with that.
In Tamworth, they are starting on 66.3%, so the average drop would get them 44.6%,, the average drop excluding the London results would get them 42.1%. The same drop as Selby would get them 40.3%. I imagine they would narrowly lose with that.
So if the Tory drop is the same as the average of other by elections, they would probably narrowly hold Mid Beds and narrowly lose Tamworth
The outcome where they get a higher share in losing Tamworth than they do in holding Mid Beds is quite feasible i would have thought.
|
|
