Tuesday, 1 September 2009

My theory on a "big victory" for the Tories

Mike Smithson over at Channel 1 of Political Betting has said something which sounds a little interesting to me. As I am someone who tries to read what's on the page and then what's in between the lines, I have a theory that I will put forward to fellow PBers.

The extract I am interested in is:
I still think that the Tories are on their way to a big victory - but at the moment I’m not risking any cash on it.
If you ask me Mike is just saying the first part of the phrase, I don't think even he believes that the Tories are on their way to a big victory. Personally I am backing the idea of a hung Parliament but mind you I have never been right with my predictions, so why isn't Mike risking money on the big win for the Tories?

I personally think Mike is looking at this whole argument from a different angle to the rest of us, its quiet true that you don't risk money until you are sure of a win and that's what I think Mike isn't sure about.

I like Mike wait for what Brown pulls off at Conference, and let’s see what Labour achieve at the polls. A fourth term would be massive, it would destroy the Tories and that's why I think its time we watched Labour very carefully over the next months.


wonderfulforhisage said...

"A fourth term would be massive, it would destroy the Tories...."

Yes please, then we could regroup around Hannan, Carswell, Redwood, Davies, and other real Tories. The worst scenario would be another five years of Labour but my bet is there would be some crisis sooner than that which would trigger a General Election.

If the Cameroons win we'll be in for more of the same for a generation. Would that I were young enough to emigrate.

Innocent Abroad said...

The argument for a Tory landslide seems to rest on either hunch (I think I was the first to argue for it on pb.com on that basis) or on Robert's spreadsheets and the following propositions:

(1) LibDem voters prefer a Tory to a Labour government in the proportion 3:2

(2) "Other" voters are twice as likely to be right-wing in outlook as centrist or left-wing.

Taking a base of Con 45 Lab 30 LD 15 Other 10 (roughly the mid-point of current polls) this gives a "forced choice" voting pattern for Con-Lab seats (assuming half on LD/Other supporters switch) of
Con 53 Lab 35.

Applying the "cube law" and assuming 500 seats in which Con and Lab are top two gives approx Con 390 Lab 110

I find it almost impossible to get a sense of how the Lib Dems will do. This will I think depend on whether people just want to kick Brown or actually want Cameron, and I don't think that will be determined until the closing stages of the campaign. So let's take a mid-point of say 45 for them, returning them to 1997 (in effect) rather than 1987/92.

Again with the Nats and others it's very hard to say but I'll go for 20 seats for them (outside NI). Topping up the rest equally to Con and Lab gives Con 430/440, Lab 150/160 and an overall Tory majority well in excess of 200.

Anonymous said...

"its quiet true that you don't risk money until you are sure of a win"

No it's not; you would hardly ever be betting if that was the case.