politicalbetting.com

WHAT OF THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS?

The modern Liberal revival began in local government, with the capture of Finchley in the late 1950s. Decade by decade, Liberal (and then Alliance) support on local councils grew steadily, until by the mid 1990s, the Liberal Democrats had 50 local councils under their control, and more local councillors than the Conservatives. Typically, Liberal Democrats gains came in areas of long-standing Conservative support (although there were exceptions like Liverpool, Tower Hamlets and Southwark).

Recently, the nature of Liberal Democrat representation has changed. Many seats have now reverted to the Conservatives, but the Liberal Democrats have made serious inroads into Labour’s urban heartlands. They have captured councils like Newcastle, Durham, and Islington, and are the only serious opposition to Labour in many urban areas.

How will the Liberal Democrats do on May 4th? Outside London, the scope for large headline gains is limited, due to the small number of seats being contested. Within London, most of the really tight contests will be between Labour and the Conservatives.

Nonetheless, there is scope for the Liberal Democrats to make progress. Outside London, they should be able to gain Rochdale, and deprive the Conservatives of overall control in Solihull. They should be looking for gains (although not outright control) in Kirklees, Calderdale and Manchester. Despite their strength in Oldham and Sheffield, it is unlikely that they can win control of either borough, due to the nature of the seats being contested this year. They are vulnerable to losing their minority control of Norwich, but ought to retain Newcastle.

Among the smaller authorities, they ought to be able to win outright control of St. Alban’s, and possibly take Hart and Eastbourne from the Conservatives.

Within London, they would have had high hopes of winning Richmond, where they have performed very well in by-elections. However, David Cameron’s brand of politics should go down particularly well here, and they may well fall short. They will almost certainly lose seats (but not outright control) in Sutton. Despite Tony Travers’ prediction, I see little prospect of their losing Kingston.

As elsewhere, their best chance of making important gains will be against Labour. Haringey must be at the head of their target list, although it will be hard for them to win outright control without gaining seats in Tottenham. They must be hopeful of winning outright in Southwark, and of making big inroads into Labour’s support in Waltham Forest, Lewisham, the South of Camden, and in the Brent East wards of Brent. On the other hand, they may well lose ground to Labour in Lambeth, where that party has performed well in recent by-elections. There is no longer any realistic prospect of their winning control of Tower Hamlets.

Last Night’s Results give little indication of the outcome on May 4th, as three were in Scotland, and the other two involved an Independent and a Resident.

Epsom and Ewell BC - Town: Lib Dem 438, Residents 373, Con 205, Lab 102. Lib Dem hold.
Glasgow CC - King’s Park: Lib Dem 572, Lab 472, SNP 431, C 222, Scottish Socialist party 44, Green 38, Ind 23. Lib Dem gain from Lab. This was an excellent result for the Lib Dems who won the seat on a 19% swing.
Mansfield DC - Forest Town West: Lab 365, Lib Dem 197, Green 187, Con 175, Ind 43. Lab gain from People’s Councillor. The People’s Councillor was originally elected as Labour.
South Lanarkshire Council - Avondale South: Con 775, Lab 315, SNP 221, Ind 79, Green 71, Lib Dem 59. Con hold. A very solid win for the Conservatives.
Stirling Council - Borestone: SNP 374, Lab 335, Lib Dem 165, Con 57. SNP gain from Lab. Another poor result for Labour North of the Border. The SNP win means that Labour have now lost control of Stirling.

Sean Fear
Sean is a Tory activist and a regular contributor.

But the attacks on Gordon Brown appear to be hitting home

In the first voting intention survey by any pollster since Gordon Brown’s budget nine days ago YouGov’s March survey for the Daily Telegraph has Cameron’s Conservatives and Labour level pegging with the Lib Dems down one point.

The shares are with changes on the last YouGov poll twelve days ago are CON 36 (-2): LAB 36 (+1): LD 18 (-1). Note that the comparisons are with the last YouGov survey not the February poll in the Daily Telegraph.

These figures are exactly the same as those found by the internet pollster on the day of David Cameron’ election as Tory leader on December 6th 2005.

Tory disappointment at the declining poll share will be partly tempered by the fact that the Cameron-Osborne strategy of focusing their attacks on Gordon Brown appears to be bearing fruit.

In a commentary on the poll under the heading “The Iron Chancellor is starting to look a little rusty” Professor Anthony King notes that Gordon Brown’s ratings are on the decline. “…a year ago, three times as many people thought Mr Brown was doing a better job as Chancellor than Mr Blair was doing as Prime Minister. That gap has now closed from 35 points in Mr Brown’s favour to only 15…In March of last year, 63 per cent of YouGov’s respondents regarded the Chancellor as one of Labour’s assets. The corresponding figure today is only 50 per cent.”

We are now able to start making an assessment of the impact the new leader has had on all three parties since the Tory changeover.

The average of all YouGov polls from September - November 2005 - the three months before Cameron was elected was CON 33%: LAB 38.5%: LD 20%. So compared with the pre-Cameron period the Tories have seen a three point improvement with Labour and the Lib Dems dropping back a couple of points each.

The change is significant and starts to look quite permanent but is certainly not as great as many Tories had hoped for. It is nowhere nearly enough for the party to win most seats at the next election - never mind having a majority.

If it had not have been for the loans crisis then Labour, surely, could have expected a budget bounce. That has not happened and there must be relief that support is being more than sustained in spite of all the bad publicity.

The problem for David Cameron, of course, is that he’s not been able to capitalise on the issue because his party has operated in a similar manner.

Mike Smithson

Mark Warner 2nd favourite for the Democratic nomination

Last November I placed as much money as the bookies would allow me on the ex-Governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, to win the 2008 Presidential Election at the then price of 40/1.

At the time I wrote here that I had been very much influenced by the comments on the site by Ben - one of PB.C most long-standing contributors who follows the American scene very closely. While there’s been a lot of talk about Hilary Clinton she attracts an enormous level of animosity and although a strong favourite I’m not convinced that she will get the nomination from a party that is hungry to re-take the White House.

In the latest polls comparing the New York Senator with the possible Republican nominees, John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, Hilary has been at least ten points behind - this in spite of the general decline in popularity of George Bush’s party in the last few months. Somehow Hilary is not cutting the mustard.

In the latest betting for the nomination Clinton is at 1.24/1, Warner 3.2/1, Russ Feingold 4.4/1, John Edwards 8.4/1 and Evan Bayh 11/1. The prices of the top group are broadly shared by the US-focused Tradesports betting exchange so market sentiment on both sides of the Atlantic is pointing in the same direction.

In the Deomcrat polls you get a totally different view of the race. Warner is only rating at 4% with the better-known names of Edwards, Gore and Kerry all in double figures. At this stage, though, the polls amount to little more than a name recognition indicator.

A big element in Warner’s appeal is the belief that he could help his party pick up vital states in the South.

Last November, when state rules prevented him for running again for the Governorship, his successor did brilliantly well in Virginia - a victory for which Warner has been given a lot of credit.

My bet is on Warner going through to win the Presidency itself - a market where the 40/1 has now tightened to 10/1.

Clearly there is a long way to go althougth in less than two years we’ll have a pretty clear idea about who will get the nomination.

Mike Smithson

Betting opens on the NEXT Lib Dem leader…really!

Less than four weeks after Sir Menzies Campbell was elected leader of the Liberal Democrats betting has opened on who will replace him.

The four in the picture - Chris Huhne (5/1), Nick Clegg (4/6) , David Laws (4/1) and Ed Davey (5/1) are heading the early prices. Next in line are Mike Moore and Sarah Teather on 14/1. Julia Goldsworthy is 20/1, Mark Oaten 25/1, while Simon Hughes and Vince Cable are at 33/1. The not-publicity shy Lembit Opik is priced at 50/1.

For a real long-shot Charles Kennedy is priced at 100/1 - which looks like a great value bet. If he could show that he has really conquered his problems he would have a good chance with the membership ballot if he stood.

Like Tony Blair and David Cameron the top four in the betting have a lot in common:-

An interesting aspect of the next race will be whether Clegg, Laws and Davey will benefit from having stood aside for Ming. Huhne did not and certainly increased his profile within the party.

Barring ill-health or accidents it is hard to see another Lib Dem contest taking place this side of the General Election and I cannot see why anybody would want to bet apart from, maybe, having a small flutter on Kennedy. The 4/6 on Nick Clegg is just ridiculous given the uncertainties over the time-scale and I have yet to be convinced by him.

It is worth recalling that betting on the last Lib Dem leader did not start until December 2005.

Mike Smithson