Odds on a 2009 election

Remembering how bad I am at predictions (I'm better at by-elections than, you know, Presidential elections...) you may wish to ignore any advice coming your way from this blog. But I think I may follow through on my January prediction of a 2009 election by putting my money where my mouth is.

Ladbrokes are offering 9/2 on a 2009 election - which in itself, doesn't really represent much value. But they also offer a punt on the month in which you think an election might occur. I went with a June election (on the same day as the Euros) and you can get 16/1 on that. I sense a cheeky wee fiver might not go amiss on that one...

Of course, they also have some more "fun" bets you can take, such as who you think the next Labour leader might be.

Selected odds:
Harriet Harman - 3/1
David Miliband - 6/1
Ed Miliband - 7/1
Ed Balls - 12/1
Alastair Darling - 33/1
John Reid - 50/1

Oh, and one more thing. The scandal involving Edinburgh South MP Nigel Griffiths (House of Commons romp, in case you'd forgotten) looks like it will cost him his seat if Ladbrokes odds are anything to go by. They have the Lib Dems as favourites for the seat at 11/8 followed by the Tories at 6/4. Labour are third in the betting market at 7/2. Looks like its curtains for knock-off Nigel...

Read more...

Does a 2-point swing mean a 2009 election?

Further to yesterday's post about the prospect of a 2009 General Election, I fed the numbers into UK Polling Report's Swing Calculator and found the following result:

CON 41% = 312 seats (+114)
LAB 34% = 281 seats (-75)
LD 16% = 28 seats (-34)

If this poll were to be replicated in a General election, the net result would be a Hung Parliament, with the Tories 14 seats short of a majority. That, bear in mind, is with a 7 point gap between Labour and the Tories.

If however, Labour manage to close the gap to a 5 point Tory lead (unthinkable a couple of months ago) there's a different story to be told:

CON 40% = 293 seats (+95)
LAB 35% = 300 seats (-56)
LD 16% = 29 seats (-33)

Labour still lose the vote by 5 points... but they end up with seven seats more than the Tories. End result is still a Hung Parliament, but it is Labour 26 seats short of a majority (Tories 33 short). Crucially, while remaining on 16% the Lib Dems would actually hang onto an extra seat (presumably at the expense of a Tory gain) and return 29 MPs... which would leave them in a position to negotiate coalition with Labour (but not the Tories).

Enough of the electoral mathematics done on the back of a napkin, what's my point? Namely this... the way the constituency boundaries work favours Labour. They can maintain a level of vote that is slightly over a third and yet still return almost half the seats. That puts them in a favourable position of not actually having to beat the Tories in terms of vote share to win an election. They simply have to win more seats. And the likelihood of them doing so is high if they can claw back a couple of percentage points back from the Tories.

These numbers are, of course, worked out on the basis of uniform swing, which is unlikely. It also doesn't take into account regional strength, relative strength of nationalist competition in Scotland and Wales or the Tories recent electoral alliance with the Ulster Unionists who, presumably, would support them in the event of a Hung Parliament.

My question is this: If this is as good as it will get for Labour - realistically, they are not going to pull ahead of Cameron's Conservatives anytime soon - if they can get to within 5 points of them nationally, why wouldn't Gordon Brown go to the polls?

With 300 MPs and 35% of the vote there are many commentators who (after the spanking Labour have been taking in the polls over the last few months) would see this as a massive result for Gordon Brown. To only be 26 seats short of governing - with the economic mess and unemployment rising by the hour - would be nothing short of miraculous.

A betting man would like the odds. And surely, there's a small part of Gordon Brown that thinks he might just go for it...

Just so you know, I didn't ignore the Populus poll (Con 43 Lab 30 LD 18) published yesterday - I hadn't seen it when I'd written this. I do think it is something of an outlier though and that, rather than leading up to a Cameron lead, the polls are squeezing. Thoughts?

Read more...

No election this year?

When I was writing my 2009 predictions (I'm not doing too well so far - though I did call 3 changes on the Scottish Government benches, as well as a struggle to pass the budget) I bit the bullet and plumped for an election this year. I thought - correctly, as it has turned out - that Gordon Brown's handling of the economy would shrink Tory poll leads and that he'd go for an election in June as a result of Labour's less than disastrous showing in English Council Elections in May.

Now we are only in April, but the PM has apparently ruled out calling a snap election, saying:

"I am not going to get into talk about dates."

"Our first priority is jobs, it's homes and it's businesses. We have got to show people how we can take the country through this difficulty."

"I think if you were a citizen of Britain looking at what's happening in the economy you would want our first priority to be exactly what it is."

That, according to The Scotsman, equates with the following headline

"Brown rejects snap election despite Labour's G20 'bounce'"

Hang on a minute though. Is there anything in what he says that explicitly rules out an election? Because I can't see it. He said he's not going to talk about dates. Which means not that he is not considering an election, merely that he is not going public with these considerations at the moment.

And why would he? Labour's position in Westminster polls has improved markedly over the last few months. And the latest YouGov (post G20) poll has them within 7 points of the Tories:

CON 41%
LAB 34%
LD 16%

A far cry from the days of 20-point Tory leads. Now instead of facing down the barrel of a huge defeat, we are probably looking at the prospect of a hung-parliament while if Labour can claw back another couple of points they might even manage to scrape into government for a fourth term.

Far better for Brown to be in with a fighting chance of forming a government after the election than have a small band of MPs to oppose a massive Tory government.

I'm keeping my neck on the line and going with a 2009 election. I think he may go with it on the same day as the European election - though if the polls continue to swing Labour's way, he may hold out until September.

Anyone agree?

Read more...

The 2009/10 General Election

Current political map of Scotland (from Scottish Politics)

I've been saying for some time that I would start a round-up of the Scottish constituencies in time for the next Westminster election. Well, that time has arrived, and an alphabetical list will begin with Aberdeen North this afternoon. I'm still working on some (most) of the information. If nothing else, I'll get 59 blog posts out of it...

Anyway, to start off, here's a rough guide to my predictions (which would be more fun if Jeff were here to critique them). I should point out that pre-Glenrothes by-election, there were slightly less Labour seats, but after careful analysis (read: guesswork) I've reverted them back to red. So, the next Parliament's representation from Scotland - by my reckoning - will look something like this:

LAB (including Speaker) - 31 (-8)
SNP - 13 (+6)
LIB DEM - 9 (-3)
CON - 6 (+5)

The following posts will give information on each constituency - with previous election results, swing required, candidates and Scottish Parliament equivalents. If you know of any factors that I haven't considered (for example, pertinent local issues) drop me a line and I'll update the information.

Read more...