— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) June 13, 2014
Maybe this explains the disparity between constituency & GB markets
The standard assumption is that this is mostly down to the boundaries is wrong. Yes LAB does get some benefit but the key factor is different turnout levels in CON and LAB seats. Shadsy of Ladbrokes gets this right in in his blog:-
“..the main factor is differential turnout in safe seats. The Conservativeâ€™s safest 10 seats had an average turnout of 68%. In Labourâ€™s top 10 it was just 56%. The Tories stack up huge vote majorities in seats across the South of England, for no extra benefit at all. Whereas, of the 50 lowest turnover seats in the country, 46 are held by Labour â€“ much more efficient…”
There’s not a lot you can do to legislate against this. General Elections are decided on which individuals, not parties, come top in first past the post contests in 650 separate seats. Rightly or wrongly proportionately based on national aggregate party vote shares doesn’t come into it.
The worry for Labour is that a victory in this manner will be portrayed as unfair and lead to claims that it lacks legitimacy.
I’m on the Ladbrokes CON most votes/LAB most seats bet at 8/1 and even at the current level it looks good value.