2020: the Lib Dems, sifting through the wreckage

7 May 2015 was a disastrous day for the Lib Dems.  Overnight, they lost 49 of their 57 MPs.  This result was worse than their worst nightmares.  Will they be able to recover in 2020?

This is what remains of the Lib Dems' representation in the House of Commons:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1ZGtkZVpVRGJXSHc/view?usp=sharing

It's a short list.

What should they be targeting next?  Here are the list of their best target seats on the current boundaries:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1cGpNSENPOWx2aXc/view?usp=sharing

Note that the boundaries may well change in this Parliament, so this list should not be taken too seriously and should be seen more as indicative than anything final.  However, there are some points relating to a boundary review that are particularly relevant to the Lib Dems, as I shall note later.

I hope that both of these tables are largely self-explanatory.  On the first list I have highlighted the majority in the colour of the party of the nearest challenger (I have used grey for the SNP simply on the ground of legibility).  On the second list I have highlighted the seat and the majority in the colour of the party of the incumbent.  On the second list I have also asterisked the majority if the Lib Dems are in third, with an additional asterisk for each position the Lib Dems dropped below third.  As you go down the table, the asterisks thicken on the ground.

So where to start?  The Lib Dems will want to think about possible gains.  But the second table does not give them much to give them great hopes of a quick revival. Beyond the top 50 targets, their vote has turned to dust. The Lib Dems held Chesterfield ("target" 82) until 2010 and are now fourth. Meanwhile, target 81 is Hartlepool, in which they finished seventh.  I encourage you to take a look at the epic swings that the Lib Dems need from third, fourth or lower in the second half of this table so that you can appreciate just how few opportunities for outside gains the Lib Dems will have next time.

So the Lib Dems are going to have very few constituencies to focus on.  Just how few in practice?

A uniform 5% swing to them gets them just 16 seats.  And their chances of getting such a swing in those seats are dramatically reduced because in most cases (Bath and Fife North East being the exceptions) these are seats where the Lib Dems were incumbents with large incumbency votes. Most or all of these former incumbents will not be standing in 2020, meaning that any new candidate will be starting from a much lower base.  Of the top five Lib Dem targets, former incumbents Vince Cable, Norman Baker and Stephen Lloyd have already said that they are retiring from politics.  They are typical of the ousted Lib Dem MPs, and their successors as candidates will not have a residue of loyalty to draw on. 

It gets worse for the Lib Dems.  As I have noted, the Lib Dems trade heavily on local loyalties and incumbency.  If the boundary changes go through, that remaining loyalty and incumbency will be weakened further.  Meanwhile, each of the 49 seats that the Lib Dems have just lost now have 49 incumbents, all of whom will be seeking to entrench themselves using the type of tactics that the Lib Dems pioneered so successfully. 

We can probably add at least 10% to the size of the majority that the Lib Dems would need to overcome in most cases (that assessment of 10% may be being charitable to them).  If so, the Lib Dems are going to struggle to make any gains at all without a dramatic revival in their fortunes. 

 Meanwhile, the Lib Dems cannot be confident of holding all of their current seats next time.  As the first table shows, they don't have large majorities anywhere other than Westminster & Lonsdale.  The value of their incumbency in many seats looks set to be weakened by boundary changes (though I expect the boundaries of Orkney & Shetland to remain unaltered).  And some of their current MPs will probably retire in 2020.  What are the chances that Nick Clegg will be standing again?  Or John Pugh (who by then will be 72)?

7 May 2015 was a disastrous day for the Lib Dems.  But it seems to me that the extent of the disaster has yet to be fully understood.  It is entirely possible that it was the day that ended the Lib Dems as a significant force in British politics.

The Lib Dem battleground in April 2015

This week is my pre-election round-up of the seat markets, and I'm ploughing through the parties one by one (metaphorically speaking).  On Wednesday I looked at the constituency betting markets as they currently stand from a Labour perspective.  Yesterday I looked at the Conservatives.  Today it's the Lib Dems' turn.

So here's the table of all the seats where the Lib Dems' chances are ranked by the bookies as 16/1 or better, ranked in ascending order of implied probability:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1NUNleG1ldmdOMkk/view?usp=sharing

These figures are up to date as at 13 April 2015.

To recap, this table is compiled on the basis that in aggregate the constituency odds are our best estimate of what's going on, while noting that there may be individual anomalies (otherwise known as betting opportunities).  The constituency odds factor those matters in to the best judgement of bookies and punters. By arranging constituencies by order of odds rather than majority, we can see how many seats gamblers expect the parties to take - or what the odds are that each party will take a given number of seats.

The overarching picture for the Lib Dems has deteriorated decisively since November, the last time I took a comprehensive look at the seat markets.  They are longer than 5/6 in 31 constituencies that they currently hold (up from 24 in November), 5/6 being the price that the bookies use for a 50:50 shot (they have their margins to make).  

In June, the Lib Dems were priced at odds of greater than 2/1 in ten of the constituencies that they hold.  By November, that had risen to 14.  Now, there are 21 such seats.

Despite the Lib Dems facing many more Conservative challengers than Labour challengers, the favourites in these 21 seats is exactly evenly divided between Labour, the Conservatives and the SNP.  This represents a strengthening in both the SNP's and (to a lesser extent) the Conservatives' position since November, while Labour have stood still.  

The position is getting worse for the Lib Dems at the other end of the spectrum too.  In June, the Lib Dems are rated at shorter odds than 1/2 in 22 seats.  By November, this had fallen to 19.  Now, there are only 14 seats where the Lib Dems are thought to be a better than 1/2 shot.

So why are the Lib Dems doing so much worse on the seat markets now?  In part, as with Labour, it's a consequence of the SNP's surge in Scotland.  But in the main, it reflects the failure of the Lib Dems to recover in the polls in the run-up to the election.  A recovery had been priced in and it hasn't happened.

For those that want to look at my previous outings on the Lib Dems, here's my review in October:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-lib-dem-battleground-in-november.html

And here's my June review:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-lib-dem-battleground-in-june-2014.html
 

One of the central questions of the next election is: how far will the Lib Dems fall from the 23% they recorded in 2010 and where will those losses be felt most?  

The Lib Dems seem to be doing particularly poorly in Scotland, if the Scottish only polls are to be believed.  They also seem to be set to be obliterated in seats where they are not in contention.

What of seats where the Lib Dems are in contention?  We have conflicting polling.  The constituency polls for Lord Ashcroft tell a reasonably hopeful story for the Lib Dems, showing their local effort potentially leading to them to hang on in many redoubts.  But a recent ComRes poll of the Lib Dem-held seats in the south west with Conservative challengers tells a very different story, showing a swing of 13%, which would lead to them losing every single seat in the region on a uniform swing.  At the other extreme, we have details of some Lib Dem private polling showing many of their incumbents doing phenomenally well.  They cannot all be right (though they can all be wrong).  Which should we believe?

Lord Ashcroft derives his headline constituency poll numbers from the second of a two part question, where voters have been guided to concentrate on who is standing in their constituency.   His standard questions are as follows:

"1. If there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for? Would it be Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP or another party.  If 'another party': Would that be, the Green Party, the British National Party (BNP) or some other party - or do you not know how you would vote?

2. And thinking specifically about your own constituency and the candidates who are likely to stand there, which party's candidate do you think you will vote for in your own constituency at the next general election? [Prompts as at Q1]"

ComRes's question did seek to elicit a local response. It read: "Please now think specifically about your own constituency, the issues it faces, the local MP and the different candidates. At the General Election coming up in May, would you vote Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP or for some other party?"  It did not, however, explicitly lead voters through the same process as Lord Ashcroft.

Lord Ashcroft's approach relies on voters going through the same two stage process that he prompts them to.  If the Lib Dems' electoral machine is running smoothly, that may be a safe assumption.  In seats where the Lib Dems are not so fluent, perhaps it isn't.

So my expectation is that the Lib Dems may overperform in seats where they have the organisation to get out the vote and underperform elsewhere.  Past performance is not always a guide to the future, but it is at least a guide to where the Lib Dems have the organisational skills.

The methodology behind the Lib Dems' private polling is here:

http://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2015/04/East-Dunbartonshire-constituency-poll.pdf

As you can see, it asks the respondents to consider the merits or otherwise of the Lib Dem incumbent and her chief opponent before asking the voting question.  I shall be charitable about the Lib Dems' private polling and say that it may provide a useful guide to them as to how to frame the election to maximise their vote, and releasing such polling may well be useful to them for obtaining tactical votes.  It may also be a hint to the seats where the Lib Dems are well organised: we have seen leaked polls from some constituencies but not from others.  I draw a fairly good inference in the most threatened constituencies where we haven't seen leaked polls that the Lib Dems may well be up against it.

So, what individual seats do I recommend?  Generally, I'm cautious where the Lib Dems are heavily involved because of the general murk about how their local performance.  I don't believe that there are many home bankers unless you have very firm views about which constituency polling methodology is correct.  I don't.

That said, I pay closer attention to individual constituency polls from Lord Ashcroft than usual, because they should pick up the performance of the local MP, which is going to be exceptionally important in Lib Dem held seats.

Given the Lib Dem decline in vote share, any bets on short priced Lib Dem seats is a bet on the quality of that constituency's party machine.  I've put some money on the Lib Dems in Thornbury & Yate at 2/7 because I reckon that Steve Webb's personal vote will see him through comfortably, but I don't regard this bet as being as safe as some of the short priced bets on Labour and the Conservatives yesterday.

 

It may be better to identify misfiring challenges.  The Conservatives in Southport seem to have been no better organised than in 2010, so the 1/2 on the Lib Dems is worth a bet.

 

Alternatively, the murk may mean that you get better value in the 1/2 to 2/1 band than in supposedly safer bets.  I've put bets on the Lib Dems in Cheadle at 4/5 and Eastleigh at 4/7.  The latter price in particular looks too long, with the Conservatives failing at the by-election and UKIP apparently fading outside their top targets at present.

All bets on the Lib Dems are very much AYOR.  These are inherently riskier bets than bets in straight Conservative/Labour fights, because local considerations may (or may not) weigh much more heavily than in other contests and much is not visible from the outside.
 

What of the seats where the Lib Dems are the challengers?  For quite some time, I have regarded many of these prices as way too short.  If voters in these seats weren't going to vote Lib Dem at the height of enthusiasm for Nick Clegg, you need an exceptional reason to think that they're a worthwhile bet to make a gain.  The value for me is almost always all on the other side of the bet.  In the last two posts, I've already mentioned Ashfield and Maidstone & The Weald as seats where the incumbents are good value.  You might well form the same view of Oxford West & Abingdon, Truro & Falmouth and Newton Abbot.

Tomorrow I'll turn to the SNP.

Blessed are the kingmakers: who will the Lib Dems be after May?

Conventional wisdom now has it that we are going to have a hung Parliament.  And it is entirely possible that the Lib Dems will have a central part to play in the formation of the next government.  A lot of thought has been given to how many Lib Dems will survive.  Not much thought has been given to what the Lib Dems will look like in the next Parliament. 
 

The Lib Dems span a wide range from those who place most emphasis on the social aspects of liberal democracy, like Charles Kennedy and Tim Farron, to those who place most emphasis on the small state aspects of liberal democracy, like Danny Alexander and Jeremy Browne.  If the Lib Dems are to lose a lot of seats, as we currently expect, the balance of the Parliamentary party could be crucial to the shape of negotiations.

Who's going?

I'm going to assess this in the main by strict reference to the odds.  I'll divide this into four groups: those who look very likely to stay (1/2 or shorter); those who look very likely to go (2/1 or longer); those who are more likely than not to stay but no sure thing (between 1/2 and evens); and those who aren't expected to stay but who have a decent chance of overcoming the odds (evens to 2/1).  Here is the current state of play in the Lib Dem held seats:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1ZTQ1djlSWjIyZUE/view?usp=sharing

As you can see, this is not a pretty picture for the Lib Dems.  They are rated at 1/2 or better in only 18 seats and are odds-on in only 11 more, while they are at 2/1 or worse in 21 seats and evens or worse in a further seven seats.  They look set for a spanking and the only question is how sore they're going to be by the end.

Doomed (2/1 or longer)	Safe (1/2 or shorter)
Danny Alexander Gordon Birtwistle Annette Brooke (standing down, replacement Vikki Slade) Sir Malcolm Bruce (standing down, replacement Christine Jardine) Lorely Burt Sir Menzies Campbell (standing down, replacement Tim Brett) Michael Crockart Lynne Featherstone Stephen Gilbert David Heath (standing down, replacement David Rendel) John Leech Tessa Munt Alan Reid Sir Robert Smith, Bt. Ian Swales Jo Swinson Sarah Teather (standing down, replacement Ibrahim Taguri) Viscount John Thurso David Ward Jenny Willott Simon Wright	Norman Baker Tom Brake Vince Cable Alistair Carmichael Edward Davey Tim Farron Don Foster (standing down, replacement Steve Bradley) Martin Horwood Simon Hughes Charles Kennedy Norman Lamb David Laws Greg Mulholland John Pugh Bob Russell Sir Andrew Stunell (standing down, replacement Lisa Smart) Steve Webb Roger Williams
Up against it (evens to 2/1)	At risk (1/2 to evens)
Sir Alan Beith (standing down, replacement Julie Pörksen) Jeremy Browne (standing down, replacement Rachel Gilmour) Andrew George Duncan Hames Mike Hancock (expelled from party, replacement Gerald Vernon-Jackson) Sir Nick Harvey Michael Moore	Paul Burstow Nick Clegg John Hemming Julian Huppert Mark Hunter Stephen Lloyd Dan Rogerson Adrian Sanders Mike Thornton Mark Williams Stephen Williams

The politics of all this

If we want to see what the Lib Dems will look like after the next election, we should focus on the right hand column.  Obviously there may be upsets, but if the bookies are even approximately right, the Parliamentary party will be drawn largely from those names.  But let's look at some different cases.

The full-on hammering

If the Lib Dems take only their safe seats, Nick Clegg would be gone.  Three leading rightwingers will remain: Ed Davey, David Laws and Norman Lamb.  But the influence of leading leftwingers will be much greater than at present, especially with Nick Clegg out of Parliament.  Vince Cable, Charles Kennedy, Tim Farron and Steve Webb are generally thought to be much more comfortable looking leftwards (though Steve Webb has worked effectively in the coalition government, making his policy area very much his own).  

Actually, though, the internal composition of the Lib Dems in these circumstances wouldn't make much difference in a hung Parliament: the Lib Dems' 18 seats would be unlikely to be decisive, except in circumstances where they had only one choice. Also, after such a hammering, it's unlikely that the Lib Dems would want to be in government with anyone.  They'd want to regroup.

The heavy pounding

If the Lib Dems take their safe seats and those that they are narrowly odds-on to take, they would tally a more respectable 29 seats.  At that point, they could start having influence in hung Parliament discussions.

And this group would be dominated by the left.  14 of the MPs who would remain are in the Beveridge Group, who represent the socially liberal wing of the party:
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Group

This group is much keener on the public sector than market provision.  These 14 MPs do not include Vince Cable, Steve Webb or Charles Kennedy.  Other MPs who would survive the cull, such as Paul Burstow, have made no secret of their hostility to the Conservatives.

Even if Nick Clegg makes it back, it's hard to imagine a grouping like this cosying up to the Conservatives for another five years unless they are driven to it by numerical necessity.  And it appears that Nick Clegg is going to have a hard fight now.  Without him, I don't see any Lib Dem voice who is going to be arguing hard for a link-up with the Conservatives again.

The light dust-up

If the Lib Dems, Houdini-like, manage to keep those seats which they are currently up against it to keep, they will have 36 seats.  At this point, they start to become credible coalition partners and not just confidence and supply material.   Note that the seven seats in the "up against it" category are all Conservative targets. 

The extra seven MPs would not obviously alter the weight of the party decisively.  Duncan Hames is an acolyte of Nick Clegg and Andrew George is in the Beveridge Group.  Sir Nick Harvey and Michael Moore are both one-offs who are not too easy to categorise.  We can infer from his long friendship with Mike Hancock that Gerald Vernon-Jackson is likely to be in tune with the Beveridge Group.  But otherwise we can't easily tell where prospective MPs fit on the spectrum: their campaigns are very local.  

Overall, we should still expect the Lib Dems to want to look left on this scenario also.  For a contrary view, I attach an article from the New Statesman's site May2015:

http://may2015.com/featured/the-lib-dems-will-be-a-centre-right-party-after-the-election/

I think that this article is utterly wrong, since it ignores the politics of the individuals who will make up the post-2015 Lib Dem Parliamentary party.  But make your own mind up.

Betting implications

If I am right, it will not be enough for the Conservatives to gain most seats to stay in power.  They will need to get a sufficient number of seats so as to make it practically impossible for any other stable government to be formed.  To form a stable government, the Conservatives with the Lib Dems are going to need something of the order of 330 seats as a minimum.  That means that on either the "hard pounding" or the "light dust-up" scenarios, the Conservatives will need 300 seats or near enough to form the next government.  If they have fewer, the Lib Dems will find the lure of the left irresistible.  295 looks the absolute minimum for a continuation of the Conservatives in power.

The midpoint with the various bookies on their over/under bets on the Conservatives is 281.5 for Ladbrokes, 282.5 for Paddy Power and Coral, 283.5 for SkyBet and 285.5 for Bet365, and with all of these bookies you can back either option at the same price.  The Sporting Index spread at present is 281-287.  At these levels, the Conservatives would not continue in office.

So lay David Cameron on Betfair to be Prime Minister after the next election (available on Betfair at prices between 4/6 and 4/5).  This should be somewhere around 6/4.  It is certainly not close to an evens bet at present, even if you believe that the Conservatives will get most seats, which itself is far from clear at present.  This price is a steal.  You can get 13/8 with William Hill that David Cameron will remain Prime Minister to 2016, and that seems more realistic.

Alternatively, back Ed Miliband to be Prime Minister on 1 August 2015 at 11/8 with William Hill.  This is taking the risk that he might not survive the mayhem of hung Parliament negotiations, which will be a topic for discussion if Labour has considerably fewer seats than the Conservatives, so it's a bit less satisfactory.  But it remains a good bet.

And generally, place bets on post-election negotiations bearing in mind that the Lib Dems who return will have a firm political preference for swinging to the left.  If the Conservatives are to stay in power, they're going to have to do most of the work all by themselves.

Missing, presumed red? The 2010 Lib Dems

I have repeatedly turned to the question of the Lib Dems' impending fate.  It is one of the central questions of the next election: how far will the Lib Dems fall from the 23% they recorded in 2010 and where will those losses be felt most?  Where will their erstwhile voters put their cross if they do desert the Lib Dems?  The next election will be decided in large part by the answers to those questions.

Many electrons have been spilt over these questions, but we are not much closer to an answer, except chronologically.  Perhaps we can refine some of the questions a little further.In this post, I intend to look at the following:

1. What are the Lib Dems currently polling nationally?

2. Can that be reconciled with the constituency polls that Lord Ashcroft has been conducting?

3. If not, what might be causing the discrepancy?

What are the Lib Dems polling nationally?

I like questions of fact.  We need to take this pollster by pollster, so that we don't get confused by differing methodologies.

Populus - the Lib Dems are scoring between 8 and 10%.  They last went outside that range (on the low side) in mid-November.

ICM - the Lib Dems are recording between 10 and 12%.  They recorded 14% in December, but otherwise have stayed in that range since last May.

YouGov - rather more grimly for the Lib Dems, YouGov very consistently find their support in the 6-8% band.  They last went outside this narrow band in October, which considering YouGov poll five times a week represents astonishing consistency.

Survation - Survation have a much wider scatter.  In the last few months they have found the Lib Dems at 6%, 11% and all points in between.  Tentatively I'd suggest the range is 6-9%.

Ipsos-MORI - belying its reputation as being very swingy, Ipsos-MORI also has the Lib Dems in a narrow band, consistently finding that they poll between 7 and 9%.  The last time they went outside this range was in March.

ComRes - Aside from one poll in December, you have to go back to 2013 to find an occasion when ComRes found the Lib Dems polling outside a 7-10% range.

Lord Ashcroft - Since July, the Lib Dems have polled between 7 and 9% with Lord Ashcroft in all bar two polls (one with them at 10%, one at 6%).

Opinium - until this week, the Lib Dems recorded between 6 and 9% since July (this week's poll had them at 5%).

TNS-BRMB - the Lib Dems have recorded in a wider range with TNS-BRMB, with scores between 5 and 9% in the last year.

So if we look at the position on a pollster by pollster basis, it seems fairly clear that the Lib Dems are becalmed in the polls.  If you believe ICM, they are in low double digits.  Otherwise, the consensus has them in high single figures, with an average somewhere around 8% for almost all pollsters other than ICM, with no meaningful variation over the last few months.

Isn't it nice when a factual question has a fairly clear answer?

Can that be reconciled with the constituency polls that Lord Ashcroft has been conducting?

Gratifyingly, Lord Ashcroft's estimation of the Lib Dems' national polling is very mainstream at a stable 8%, which means that his constituency polls don't need calibration for changing national vote shares and can be read across without too much being required in the use of cold towels.

Lord Ashcroft, reasonably enough, has so far largely confined his constituency polling to marginals.  As a result, we have a skewed set of seats, and we'll have to fill in some blanks.
 

The constituency polling conducted so far falls into the following categories: Lib Dem/Conservative battlegrounds; Lib Dem/Labour battlegrounds; Conservative/Labour battlegrounds; Labour/UKIP battlegrounds; and Brighton Pavilion.  But that may be over-precise - a simple division between seats where the Lib Dems are in contention and the rest may suffice for now.  Obviously, the Lib Dems want to find as many Lib Dem voters as possible in the first set of seats, and if they have to shed any, they would much prefer to shed them in the second set of seats.

And they do seem be shedding votes in the second group of seats.  Across the 89 constituency polls (some are repeats in the same constituency) in such seats, the Lib Dems are averaging between 6 and 7% (closer to 7%, in fact).  This conceals substantial variations: the Lib Dems would lose their deposit in 23 of these polls and they are recorded at as low as 2% in North Warwickshire and Thurrock. 
 

They are also shedding votes in their own battlegrounds, but still averaging over 30% across the 57 opinion polls conducted in constituencies where they are in contention (again, there are some repeats).

All well and good, but does this add up?  To which the answer is, mostly.  If we reckon that there are say 70 seats where the Lib Dems would see themselves as in serious contention and use an average of 30%, and use 6.5% as an average for the other 561 mainland seats, we get a Lib Dem overall poll rating of just over 9% - a full percentage point ahead of the centre point of their national polling. 

So the constituency polling is in the same ballpark as the national polling.  It's broadly plausible.  But there is a bit of a difference, and the constituency polling suggests that the Lib Dems are doing a bit better than you'd expect from the national polls.

It may not sound like a big discrepancy, but in the context of such low national poll ratings, 1% is significant, given the sheer volume of national and constituency polls that we have had and their consistency.  It could make the difference of quite a lot of seats, depending on how the two are reconciled.  It needs explanation, or an acceptance that national polling and constituency polling are telling us slightly different things.

Why are the Lib Dems apparently overperforming a bit in the constituencies?

There are a range of possible explanations, not all of which exclude each other.  Here are the possibilities that spring to my mind.

1. Labour safe seats and Conservative safe seats may behave differently from marginals

It is theoretically possible that the Lib Dems will do worst in Labour and Tory safe seats. That doesn't sound desperately plausible to me. No one else will be squeezing their vote.

I suppose that the Lib Dems might be doing particularly badly in safe Labour and Conservative seats where UKIP are pressing.  I can't say that I'm overwhelmed with confidence in that theory.
 

2. The Lib Dems may be losing more support in their safest seats

Same theoretical possibility. Still less plausible: the Lib Dems will be squeezing out the last ounce in such seats. 

3. The Lib Dems may be losing more support in areas where Lord Ashcroft has not so far conducted much polling (Scotland especially, but perhaps Wales and north east England also)

There may be something in this.  The Lib Dems do seem to be doing particularly poorly in Scotland, if the Scottish only polls are to be believed.  However, these seats make up a relatively small proportion of the total, so the underperformance would need to be severe indeed to make the sums add up.

Lord Ashcroft is releasing some Scottish constituency polls tomorrow.  We shall see more then, I guess.

4. The Lib Dems will in fact do less well in one or both of these sets of constituencies 

This has to be a possibility.  The Lib Dems are going to make no effort in seats where they are not in contention, and Lord Ashcroft's polling is based on respondents being prompted to think about who to vote for in their own constituency.  Lib Dem supporters will need to be very committed (or very strongly believe in their civic duty) to turn out in practice.  I expect that some of those who would say that they are going to vote Lib Dem when prompted will be seduced by another party or will stay at home.

What of seats where the Lib Dems are in contention?  Lord Ashcroft derives his headline poll numbers from the second of his two part question, where voters have concentrated on who is standing in their constituency.  That relies on voters going through the same two stage process.  If the Lib Dems' electoral machine is running smoothly, that may be safe.  In seats where the Lib Dems are not so fluent, perhaps it isn't.

5. The national polling understates how well the Lib Dems will do in practice 

This also has to be a possibility.  It may be that voters will turn their minds to their own constituency and decide that the Lib Dems after all should be favoured with their cross.  It is noteworthy that ICM, the one pollster that gets respondents at a national level to think about their constituency, is the one pollster that finds the Lib Dems with a higher level of support.

The Lib Dems may in practice overperform in seats where they have the organisation to get out the vote.  Past performance is not always a guide to the future, but it is at least a guide to where the Lib Dems have the organisational skills.

Conclusions

The Lib Dems have been remarkably steady (or flat, to use a less friendly word) in the national polls.  There is no immediately obvious reason why they should start putting on support in the run-up to the election nationally, though they may do so in their local constituencies if their local MP has a particularly strong profile.

So the key question remains where they will get that support.  We can now expect a lot of lost deposits for the Lib Dems.  As noted above, I expect the Lib Dems to do best where they are organisationally strongest and that the identity of the local MP will be vital to their chances of survival.  For the Lib Dems, everything is local.  There is nothing in the offing that suggests that the Lib Dems are going either to suffer annihilation or to avoid substantial losses.   But the detail remains uncertain, and will depend in large part on which pollster's methods is closest to the mark.

I appreciate that none of this is particularly ground-breaking but sometimes important conclusions aren't. 

Testing the boundaries (3): the Lib Dems vs all comers

My first post in April was about the Lib Dems' prospects and I have returned to the case regularly. It's time to take another look, this time considering where value bets might lie if the Lib Dems overachieve or underachieve against any particular batch of opponents.

Let's have a look at the Lib Dem seats by reference to different opponents: first, against the nationalists, then Labour and finally the Conservatives.  The three battles are different, but the contours of the battle in each case are similar.  In each case the Lib Dems will be fighting off a threat based on national politics by appealing to the public using the virtues of the local candidate.  This means that if the Lib Dems do adequately, results will vary considerably depending on the perceptions in each seat of the virtues of the local candidate, but if the Lib Dems crash and burn, the national picture will be a much more reliable predictor of events.

Incumbency is critical.  Here is a slightly out-of-date list of the Lib Dem MPs and their plans for 2015:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/updated-full-list-of-lib-dems-standing-in-our-held-seats-and-top-50-targets-5-40894.html

Jeremy Browne subsequently decided to stand down in October 2014 and Mike Hancock is not being reselected for Portsmouth South.

The nationalist challenge

Here are the seats where the Lib Dems are facing a serious nationalist challenge:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1bldDQXlFX0s3cTA/view?usp=sharing

This table, as with the tables that follow below, is organised by the Lib Dem price of taking the constituency.  There is some duplication between these tables because the Lib Dems feature in a few three and four way marginals.   Every seat where the Lib Dems are priced at 16/1 or less is included.

Far more than Labour, the betting public are convinced that the Lib Dems are going to be hammered by the surge in SNP support.  They are favourites to retain only four of the twelve seats that they hold where the SNP or Plaid Cymru are in the running, and shorter than 2/1 in only seven of these seats.  On current polling, this is actually kind to the Lib Dems: in the most recent YouGov poll in Scotland, the Lib Dems, who took 19% of the vote in 2010, are polling 4% (this is not particularly out of line with other Scottish polls) and the SNP have taken 49% of the 2010 Lib Dem vote: 

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/19n7gw3lt9/Sun_Results_Scotland_December_2014.pdf

The most recent Welsh opinion poll has the Lib Dems on 5% (down from 20% in 2010):

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2014-12-08/welsh-labour-sees-support-slip-but-faces-no-clear-challenger/

We have so far seen no constituency polls in any of these seats since the Scottish referendum, so we must use such information as we have.  If the polls do not improve, the Lib Dems should actually be pleased to take as many as four seats from this list. 

If the polls are broadly right, is there potential value betting against the Lib Dems?  Earlier in the year I pooh-poohed the idea that the SNP might be as short as 10/1 to oust Charles Kennedy.  The same bet is now available at 3/1.  I still find this hard to credit (though I accept that it is not a 10/1 shot now).  The evens on the SNP in Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross is, however, one that I can't look past. 

While Plaid Cymru are not soaring in the polls like the SNP, the Lib Dems are apparently cratering in Wales as well as Scotland.  The 7/4 on Plaid Cymru may be worth a flutter.  Mark Williams built up a big majority in 2010 and clearly has a strong personal following, but Plaid Cymru held the seat from 1992 to 2005 and have held the Welsh Assembly constituency since the Assembly's inception.  On the assumption that the Lib Dems will fall back in Ceredigion to some extent as elsewhere in Wales, Plaid Cymru will be the natural repository for those votes.  I've put a little on this, but I'm not betting the house.

If, conversely, the Lib Dems are going to outperform, where might that be?  As I noted previously, their good results will be very seat-specific.  Incumbency is going to be hugely important, so I would not be looking for outperformance in either Gordon or Fife North East, where there will be new candidates.  Could Michael Crockart hold Edinburgh West?  He's a first termer, so he should get some form of incumbency boost, and he may act as the rallying point for Conservatives or unionist Labour supporters who want to stop the SNP.  It's a seat that the Lib Dems have held since 1997 and in 2005 they held it with 50% of the vote.  It seems unlikely that they can hold on but it's a 6/1 shot.  I've put a small amount on this too.

In general though, I'd rather be backing the SNP than the Lib Dems in these seats.

The Labour challenge

Here are the seats where Labour are challenging the Lib Dems:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1dGpFR0p4d1RqYWc/view?usp=sharing

The Lib Dems' battle against Labour doesn't look a happy story either.  They are favourites to win only four of these seats and priced below 2/1 in only seven seats.  They are expected to get a hammering from Labour. 

If you take the view that the national picture is of most relevance in the Lib Dem battle against Labour, there isn't a seat on this list which is safe for the Lib Dems.  Personally, I expect Nick Clegg to hold Sheffield Hallam and Greg Mulholland to hold Leeds North West, possibly with some tactical Conservative support in each case. 

There have been constituency polls in some of these seats.  Lord Ashcroft has conducted polls in Sheffield Hallam, Birmingham Yardley, Burnley, Bermondsey & Old Southwark, Cambridge, Cardiff Central, Hornsey & Wood Green, Redcar, Bradford East, Brent Central, Manchester Withington and Norwich South.  ICM have also conducted constituency polls in Cambridge, Redcar and Sheffield Hallam - though the methodology of these has been the subject of much public debate, given that they were apparently commissioned with a view to pushing Vince Cable's chances of taking over from Nick Clegg as party leader.

By and large, these constituency polls back up the markets' perceptions of this battleground.  The Lib Dems were recorded as leading only in Sheffield Hallam, Birmingham Yardley and Bermondsey & Old Southwark, and in none of these by any great margin.  In many of the seats, Labour were apparently out of sight of the Lib Dems.

Given the uncertainties of constituency polls, if you are looking for Labour bets, you might take the view that the 7/4 on Labour in Bermondsey & Old Southwark is a decent bet - Labour were only behind by 1% in this poll.  Certainly it looks better value than the evens on Labour in Cambridge, where Labour were only ahead by 1%.   

The seats on this list where Labour are short-priced to win are also well worth considering.  The constituency polling suggests that the 1/5 on Labour in Bradford East, the 1/5 on Labour in Redcar and the 1/6 on Labour in Burnley is safe even if the Lib Dems revive substantially.  The 1/3 on Labour in Hornsey & Wood Green looks very respectable, given that it recorded a double digit lead even after respondents were prompted to think about their constituency.

One thing worth noting about both Bermondsey & Old Southwark and Hornsey & Wood Green is that Labour seem to be doing disproportionately well in London against the Conservatives, and there seems no reason to believe that a strong Labour performance should stop at the constituency boundaries with Lib Dem held seats.

On the other side of the fence, I would take more notice of constituency polls as they relate to the Lib Dems than anywhere else, in particular paying attention to those occasions where the Lib Dems have a sharp increase in support when voters are prompted to think of the candidates in their own constituency.  The 10/11 on the Lib Dems in Birmingham Yardley looks good.  As I have previously noted, both constituency polls in Cambridge seem to have different problems and I'm on the 5/4 for the Lib Dems to take this seat.   While we haven't had a constituency poll in Bristol West, the 8/13 looks decent value for the Lib Dems to hold a seat with a large majority.

There is absolutely nothing in the constituency polling to suggest that the Lib Dems are going to salvage any of the seats on this list where they're longer priced. 

The Conservative challenge

Finally, the seats where they face the Conservatives:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1TlQ2NUt3Z1VlcmM/view?usp=sharing

At last the Lib Dems have grounds to hope.  They are favourites in 24 of these seats and joint favourites in a 25th.  They are shorter priced than 2/1 in 31 seats on this list.

These odds are broadly backed up by the numerous constituency polls in such seats that Lord Ashcroft has conducted.  They can be found here:

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Wider-Lib-Dem-battleground-November-2014.pdf

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Wider-Lib-Dem-battleground-September-2014.pdf

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Con-Lib-Dem-battleground-June-20141.pdf

What is immediately apparent is that the Lib Dems' performance is a long way from uniform.  Sutton & Cheam and Carshalton & Wallington are swinging sharply to the Lib Dems.  Meanwhile, Somerton & Frome and Portsmouth South are showing large swings to the Conservatives.  The individual polls may err, but the overall picture of local variation is almost certainly correct.

I tentatively draw the conclusion that as far as their battles with the nationalists (and particularly the SNP) and Labour are concerned, the Lib Dems may well have crossed the event horizon and local reputations are probably not going to be enough to save MPs' skins in general, but that the Lib Dems are keeping their heads above water sufficiently in their national battle with the Conservatives that assiduous MPs can survive.

Once again, we should start by thinking about incumbency.  Where MPs are stepping down, the Lib Dems are unlikely to inherit the seat unless the majorities are huge.  It is no coincidence that both Somerton & Frome and Portsmouth South have retiring MPs.  We also have constituency polls for Berwick-upon-Tweed and Mid-Dorset & North Poole, where the Conservatives are also on course to win, though with less spectacular swings.

Incumbents are also standing down in Taunton Deane and Bath.  The majority in Bath would survive a swing of the kind being recorded in Somerton & Frome and Portsmouth South, so the 5/1 on offer there is probably not very good value.  The constituency poll in Taunton Deane (which already showed the Conservatives in the lead) predated Jeremy Browne's announcement that he was standing down, so the 8/13 on the Conservatives in that seat represents excellent value.  I'm already on the Conservatives in Portsmouth South and the 2/5 on the Conservatives in Somerton & Frome looks well worth it, given the size of the Conservative lead over the Lib Dems in the constituency poll.  Even allowing for the vagaries of constituency polls, this would need to be very wrong for 2/5 to be a poor price.

I pay particular regard to the constituencies where in Lord Ashcroft's polls he finds a particularly high increase in Lib Dem support when respondents are asked to focus on their own constituency as compared with the general voting question.  That rise is 15% or more in the following constituencies: Carshalton & Wallington, Cheltenham, Colchester, Eastbourne, Eastleigh, Kingston & Surbiton, Southport, Sutton & Cheam and Thornbury & Yate.  I infer that those constituencies have MPs who are particularly well-regarded locally.  I would not bet against them holding their seats and I would back them where the prices are attractive.  The 4/5 on the Lib Dems in Sutton & Cheam with William Hill is very good - take it.  Lord Ashcroft has conducted two polls in this seat and in both the Lib Dems have a double digit lead.  This should be somewhere around 2/5 in my book.  I have also backed the Lib Dems in Eastbourne at 4/7.

What of longer shots?  With the exception of Watford, polling in all Conservative-held seats looks dismal for the Lib Dems.  The 1/5 on the Conservatives in Newton Abbot is probably good value.

One seat which is worth keeping an eye on is Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.  North of the border, the SNP have taken a big bite out of the Lib Dems' support.  The SNP would be doing sensationally well if they were to take a border seat, given how hostile to independence this region was, but that bite may be sufficient to let the Conservatives win even if they make no further progress.  Take the 11/10 on them to take this seat.

The Lib Dem battleground in November 2014

I hope you're not expecting a plot twist in the next few days, because the structure of my next few posts should be pretty clear by now.  On Friday I looked at the constituency betting markets as they currently stand from a Labour perspective.  Yesterday I looked at the Conservatives.  Today it's the Lib Dems' turn.

So here's the table of all the seats where the Lib Dems' chances are ranked by the bookies as 16/1 or better, ranked in ascending order of implied probability:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1NXA2dmdSWkVlTFU/view?usp=sharing

To recap for first timers, this table is compiled on the basis that in aggregate the constituency odds are our best estimate of what's going on, while noting that there may be individual anomalies (otherwise known as betting opportunities).  The constituency odds factor those matters in to the best judgement of bookies and punters. By arranging constituencies by order of odds rather than majority, we can see how many seats gamblers expect the parties to take - or what the odds are that each party will take a given number of seats.

These figures are up to date as at 31 October 2014.  Following the two most recent Scottish opinion polls, many of the Scottish seats have no market, and for those I have used the prices in place before those markets were taken down on 30 October.

Despite having quite a few constituency polls since I last looked at this in June, the overarching picture for the Lib Dems is surprisingly static.  They are longer than 5/6 in 24 constituencies that they currently hold, 5/6 being the price that the bookies use for a 50:50 shot (they have their margins to make).  This is the same number as in June.

For those that want to review the detail, the June summary is here:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-lib-dem-battleground-in-june-2014.html

In the current national polling, the Lib Dems remain firmly nailed to the canvas.  In the constituency polls conducted by Lord Ashcroft and others in seats that they are defending, they are doing rather better.

It is one of my longstanding views about political betting that no one ever really knows how the Lib Dems are going to do seat by seat, which is why so many of the seats where they are in contention have no clear favourite, as I noted here:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-cloud-of-unknowing-seats-with-no.html 

Punters are getting clearer in their minds about the longer shots among the individual constituencies that the Lib Dems might lose.  In June, the Lib Dems were priced at odds of greater than 2/1 in ten of the constituencies that they hold.  That is now up to 14.  Despite the Lib Dems facing many more Conservative challengers than Labour challengers, the favourites in seven of these seats is Labour (with six having Conservative favourites and one having an SNP favourite).  The betting public believe that the Lib Dems are in far worse shape against Labour than against the Conservatives.  I agree with the betting public on this.

But punters are getting unsure whether some of the seats previously regarded as safe are in fact going to be held, as the number of seats where the Lib Dems are rated at shorter odds than 1/2 has fallen since June from 22 to 19.

The convulsions in Scottish politics are still feeding through into the constituency seat markets.  This will not be good news for the Lib Dems, as the SNP will no doubt shorten in many of the constituencies that the Lib Dems hold.  The Lib Dems are in any case far too short in many of these seats (I know I'm like a stuck record about this, but Focus leaflets and hard-working MPs aren't going to overcome a national two thirds drop in support in all that many constituencies).  Incredibly, only two out of the 14 Lib Dem held seats where the incumbents are currently rated at worse than 2/1 are in Scotland (though only four Scottish Lib Dem seats have the Lib Dems shorter than 5/6).  Expect that to change soon.

I'm spending all my time talking about the Lib Dem held seats.  What of the seats where they are the challengers?  Quite simply, I regard many of these prices as way too short.  If voters in these seats weren't going to vote Lib Dem at the height of enthusiasm for Nick Clegg, why are they going to move to the Lib Dems in 2015 when they're as popular as acne?  You need an exceptional answer to that question to make them a worthwhile bet in any constituency that they don't already hold.  As I said in June, unless you have truly exceptional information (Watford is one seat that may be exceptional, though it's so murky I'm not venturing into that seat again), avoid all bets on the Lib Dems in their notional targets.  As I said then, they look like an invitation from the bookies to commit larceny on yourself.

Anyway, Ladbrokes offer 10/11 on the Lib Dems tallying more or less than 26.5 seats.  If you have faith in the aggregated constituency markets, you should bet on them beating this.

If you think the constituency markets remain too optimistic about the Lib Dems' chances, you have a tricky choice whether to go with the 10/11 with Ladbrokes that they will get less than 27 seats or the 5/6 with Paddy Power that they will get less than 29 seats (or to pick a seat where the Lib Dems are priced at shorter odds and bet against them, bearing in mind that Lib Dem performance between seats is only loosely correlated).  I leave this conundrum to you, because I prefer to follow the detail of the constituency markets on this and back the "over" bet with Ladbrokes.  But it's not a big bet for me, because like everyone else, I'm not really sure what's going on with the Lib Dems.

If you like seat bands, you can see from the above that the Lib Dems are deemed pretty likely to get 19 seats and not that likely to get more than 43.  You can back both the 21-30 bands and the 31-40 bands with William Hill for a combined price of roughly 4/6.  If you bear in mind that far more than for Labour and the Conservatives, Lib Dem performances in different seats are only loosely correlated, the practical chances of this must be closer to 80% if the constituency markets are reasonably right (that's a figure plucked out of my backside rather than mathematically calculated, but I'm comfortable with it).

What of individual seats?  Generally, I'm cautious where the Lib Dems are heavily involved because of the general murk about how their local performance.  Pay closer attention to individual constituency polls than usual, because they should pick up the performance of the local MP, which is going to be exceptionally important in Lib Dem held seats.

I'm already on the 1/3 on Nick Clegg holding Sheffield Hallam.  This is a seat where the favourite is artificially long because of wishful thinking by his opponents (see also Morley & Outwood).  With the rise of the Greens in Bristol West, Labour's task of overturning the Lib Dems' large majority looks too tough now, and I like the 8/13 on the Lib Dems there.

On the other side of the fence, it still remains hard to see the Lib Dems winning in Portsmouth South, given the complete mess with Mike Hancock (which the new Lib Dem candidate is also to some extent embroiled in).  If you're cautious, back both the Conservatives and UKIP in appropriate proportions to get yourself a slightly better than evens bet on what looks like a 4/7 shot to me.  If you're daring, back just the Conservatives at 5/2.

There's a small underround in Truro & Falmouth - you could back the Conservatives, the Lib Dems and UKIP for a guaranteed return in 6 months of 3%.  Given Lord Ashcroft's constituency poll in June showed an 8% swing from the Lib Dems to the Conservatives, the 2/7 on the Conservatives looks very generous all by itself.  I've backed only that.

Tomorrow I'll turn to UKIP.