politicalbetting.com

Victor Chandler offer 5/1 on Blunkett returning in 2005

A great price of 5/1 is available on David Blunkett returning to the Cabinet during 2005. The 5/1 from VC compares with just 7/4 on the same punt from Bet365 and we do not think it will stay at that level.

It ‘s not often that two bookmakers offer such differing prices on the same market and, in our view, it is Chandlers which have got it marked wrongly. Get on now while it lasts.

If, as is likely, Tony Blair is returned at the General Election then big ministerial changes are expected and Blunkett could be re-introduced then. Certainly the chances must be better than 5/1.

In the past Blair has shown himself to be loyal to his political friends – just look at the “three times” returned Peter Mandelson.

A great value bet and great Christmas present.

The Guardian is running its Political Blog of the Year. Any support from site users would be very welcome.

Mike Smithson

Mike Smithson & Robert Smithson

Thanks to all our users and forum contributors for all you have done in the past nine months. The discussions are great and we’ve managed to create a community of activists and others interested in politics from almost the full gambit of UK parties where these matters can be discussed and debated in a calm non-confrontational manner. It all bodes well for the General Election campaign.

Good betting.

Can Blair play it both ways?

What’s going to be the electoral impact of the Government plan not to oppose the Countryside Alliance if it seeks an injunction delaying the ban on hunting?

Certainly the move is in line with the thinking of ministers when they tried to push the implementation to the other side of the General Election by seeking to insert a delaying clause. But seeking to do something in Parliament is completely different from what could be presented as “caving in” to the CA.

Is Tony Blair in danger of upsetting both sides? He won’t gain anything from the pro-hunt lobby for going along with this move and he might now be sacrificing the goodwill of the animal welfare groups.

The injunction should also take away the threat of serious protests during the General Election run-in which probably would have re-bounded on the pro-hunt lobby and reinforced support for the Government. It would have enabled ministers to have presented the CA as extremists thus underlining the need to have a ban and would have been a good issue to attack the Tories over their commitment to law and order.

There’s also the huge risk that an injunction by the courts against the implementation of any legislation does not look good for a government.

For the vast majority of voters hunting is not an issue that will determine whether and how they vote. But there are smallish, but nethertheless significant, groups who feel so passionately either side of the argument that it will be a vote-decider. This latest move reinforces the perception that Tony Blair is not happy with the new law thus, possibly, depriving him possibly of some of the benefit.

There’s also the down-side that for many of those who are strongly in favour of hunting the ban could be a vote-critical issue. The latest move is unlikely to make them less determined to turn-out and they are likely to go with the Tories rather than, say, UKIP.

Happy Christmas and thanks for all your support during the year. In the interests of my health (my family will kill me if I spend the entire holiday in front of the computer) there’ll only be a limited number of updates until the New Year.

The Guardian is running its Political Blog of the Year. Any support from site users would be very welcome.

Mike Smithson

Will Charles Kennedy put a smile on Michael Howard’s face

It’s said that Labour are going to campaign hard on the fact that if many of their supporters switch to the Lib Dems then the main beneficiary will be Michael Howard.

This is a tough one for Labour to get over particuarly as Charles Kennedy’s party will be seen to be pressing the Tories hard in such seats as Michael Howard’s Folkestone and all their rhetoric will be about them becoming the main party of opposition.

But the mathematics are correct – the more Labour supporters who switch to the Lib Dems the more Tory MPs there will be.

In a post yesterday Sean Fear observed: “If you try out predictions on Martin Baxter’s site, and do a straight switch from Labour to Lib Dem, with Conservatives unchanged, you’ll find the Conservatives gain 3-4 seats from Labour for each one they lose to the Lib Dems. “ The Baxter calculation is a simple mathematical formula that shows how many seats the parties get if you apply different percentages to what happened in 2001. This is based on a uniform national swing.

Doing the Sean Fear number crunching we get the following:-

Conservatives remaining constant at their 2001 vote share level of 32.7%
LAB 38.3% share of votes – LDs 19% = CON 176: LAB 389: LD 52 seats
LAB 37.3% share of votes – LDs 20% = CON 183: LAB 381: LD 52 seats
LAB 36.3% share of votes – LDs 21% = CON 186: LAB 373: LD 57 seats
LAB 35.3% share of votes – LDs 22% = CON 191: LAB 367: LD 58 seats
LAB 34.3% share of votes – LDs 23% = CON 201: LAB 356: LD 58 seats

The last calculation throws up of 27 extra Tory gains from Labour in comparison with the first line off-set by two Lib Dem gains from the Tories. All the changes are from Labour including 2 to the SNP and one to PC.

There is a lot wrong with the idea of a uniform national swing and we do not think it will produce the whopping majority envisaged for barely a third of the vote. It does not take into account the outcome of special targeting, regional variations, seat-specific issues and Martin Baxter has not yet produced a formula that would account for tactical vote unwind – a feature that many commentators believe might happen.

But the broad trend is there. A standstill Tory party will benefit much more from LAB-LD switching than the Lib Dems themselves.

The spreadbetting markets, meanwhile are unchanged. IG have LAB 348-356: CON 190-198: LD 69-73

Mike Smithson