Spreading the load
Nick B links to today's British Blogosphere news, which is that the Tories are for the first time since 1992 (or something) ahead in the polls (except the petrol crisis, which seems not to count).Some people are questioning YouGov's polling methods, though I don't really see why -- every other polling firm has shown a rapidly closing gap between Labour and the Conservatives, so it's only really a matter of degree. I'd imagine, without any technical knowledge, that YouGov's polls will be more volatile than others because they conduct more and they use the same people. I would expect to be asked by a normal polling firm something like once every 10 years, and would be likely to give an accurate answer. YouGov ask me once a week and I tend to give whatever answer comes into my head at that moment. This time I went Tory. Nevertheless I expect YouGov adjust for such people.
Nick also points to the interesting response on the question of taxing those over £100k a year at 50%,with 67% supporting it. Now if IDS said he would do that, and I really see no reason why it is against any Conservative principle, then I would vote Conservative. Self-interest yes, but as D-squared noted over the Iraq war, it is not through the benevolence of the butcher or baker that we get our daily bread...
Sp what does this mean for Tony Blair? The boys in the City think not much, the betting at NewsFuture's barely moved on the news, rating Blair's chance of losing his job this year (or resigning) still around the 20% mark. I'd have to agree, though he needs to get a grip fast or we'll start thinking of that nice Mr Major.
Talking of which, why do people always expect government's to recover from mid-term blues? I know they try to rig the economy, but history is not particularly supportive. Major just got worse and worse second time around, and was new in his first term, while Thatcher -- which I suppose is where this view comes from -- wasn't showing much sign of recovery in October 1990, and in 1983 had the Falklands war factor. The 1983-87 election is I suppose the only unarguable case -- otherwise Callaghan lost, Heath lost, Wilson lost, etc.
So are the Tories going to win the next election? It remains unlikely. The electoral system is heavily stacked against them -- on a uniform swing they need a 12% lead to gain a majority. Over at IG Index the latest betting is that Labour will lose 61 seats to get 352 seats, the Tories gain 37 to 203 and the Lib Dems gain 21 to 73, for a Labour a majority of just 47. I think that's probably about right, so I won't be betting.
Ps Talkin of the electoral system's biases I'm not sure whether your average IG punter realises how skewed the electoral systemis. The IG Index figures (which I think I will now link to weekly) are basically guessing it will be something like 38% Lab, 36% Tories, 20% Libs. Unless you really believe in the Tory revival, I suggest you go long Labour.
pps Bravely I have opened an account and am considering doing just that on a £1 stake. Then again, even a-very-unlikely 1997 result would only see me gaining about £60. A 1992 result would see me down something like £120.
pps This is not one of the most dangerous spread bets. Unlike some your losses are limited -- the parties cannot get more than 659 (?) seats or less than 0, so your maxium loss is your stake * 659 - IG Index's spread, or 0 + IG Index's spread. So for the Tories, your maximum loss is 460 * your stake (in the event that you sell them and they take all the seats).
posted by Matthew @ 6/27/2003 03:38:00 PM
Comments: 0
