Categories
Election betting: CON majority drops to a 39% chance – politicalbetting.com
Election betting: CON majority drops to a 39% chance – politicalbetting.com
In the past few days several PBers have commented that they think that the Tories will win another majority at the next election. This is in contrast to the trend on the betting markets where the chances of such an outcome, as rated by punters, has edged down a bit.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Like yesterday.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
— Matthew 7:1–5 KJV
I’m thinking we are pretty much exactly two years out from the next election. Govt want the new boundaries in place, but don’t want to run things to the last minute.
F1: not a classic race. But the bet came off.
Also, I think that's 75% of recent races in Mexico that have seen the pole-sitter not lead lap 1.
Labour needs to set out their vision for the country - and ensure it's positive. They also need to show the voters they've rooted out the last of the anti-Semitism and other poisons that festered and thrived within the party under Corbyn.
All we've seen from Starmer is a worthy and weighty self-indulgent tome that was fully in WORN territory. It will have ad zero impact on the public, or even his party.
The complicating factor is that the Tories could easily lose several seats in Wales, Scotland and the South while still picking up others as demography and the economy continue their long-term changes in the North and Midlands.
I think the chances of them losing their majority are 50% at best. In fact, I would say the market has probably got the odds backwards.
You are right that Labour does need to present a positive vision, but it also needs to destroy Boris and his government. And all of us should welcome an end to lies and corruption.
You've got to convince me how Starmer will prevent lies and corruption within the government, and amongst his MPs.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
That's 503 (alleged) in toto out of 35,000 registered participants / observers.
They are dividing registered delegates into angels and demons, and attacking those the wrong side of their particular line. The obvious comparison is with the 'activist' delegation, which is many times larger on exactly the same terms.
Questions about the definitions used, and some factual stuff that seems to be wrong. I wonder if anyone prominent will factcheck.
Article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59199484
Participants: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/PLOP_COP26.pdf
As Keir Starmer pointed out, when faced with sleaze, John Major set up the Nolan commission. The rules on expenses were tightened after that scandal. It is unprecedented that this government wants to weaken defences and lower standards. This should not be a party political matter.
The challenge for the Tories is that they have promised new hospitals and are delivering new units on existing hospitals.
As I keep pointing out, red wall voters are not as stupid as southern Tories think they are. Saying "vote for us and get a new hospital", then not opening a new hospital but saying "look, here is your new hospital" is likely to get them run out of town at the next election.
There is a dripping arrogance problem with the Tories. They won with "jam tomorrow" in 2019. They now have to deliver jam. If they fail to deliver jam AND ask "do you like your jam", it won't end well. How do you deliver on impossible promises you had no intentions of keeping?
It’s also what the EU does.
Like most moderate progressive minded people, I want this wretched Government out, but still far too early to call.
If we removed parties from the need to get much of their funding privately we would remove much of the fuel for corruption. No more cash for peerages, planning decisions or PPE contracts.
These reactors will be capable of generating nearly 500 megawatt hours of power - three times as much as much as most existing nuclear submarine reactors but more than six times less than the 3.2 gigawatts that the large plant under construction at Hinkley Point will deliver
From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59201945
Edit: errors
Speaking as someone who spent nearly twenty years managing expenses policy for a big company, it is possible to run a reasonably robust expenses system if the rules are spelled out clearly enough and properly monitored and enforced. Yes, there will always be some fiddling around the edges - people rounding up their mileage and suchlike - but serious fraud is relatively rare. And people get caught by getting away with minor fiddling, and becoming greedy; I used to have the claims for the top three highest claimers each month sent to me, and my team went through them in detail. Targeted checking like that uncovered serious cases now and again.
It would look pretty poor for MPs to go back to an allowance system, and given the different circumstances of each MP, with different constituencies and a whole stack of different transport arrangements, you’d need a complex set of rules for a allowances system, since you obviously couldn’t pay a Scottish MP the same as a London one.
I do not think it is possible to remove party funding as an issue. Whatever public money the parties got they would want more, it is the nature of the beast. IT and Social media have really increased the capacity of parties to spend even more on elections than they did before.
I want the HoL abolished but for as long as this anachronistic irrelevance remains selling seats in it is probably one of the least painful ways of parties generating the funding they think they need, certainly better than selling PP or dodgy contracts. On the latter I think that there should be some latitude for what needed to be done immediately in the Covid crisis but boy, did the "never fail to take advantage of a disaster" mentality strike hard.
But there was also a massive push factor: in the form of Labour MPs who treated the areas they represented terribly, and as a captive vote. "They'll always vote for me, so why should I hold any surgeries?" (c) Stuart Bell.
The same thing happened less than a decade earlier in Scotland, with solid-red areas going over to the SNP. If you treat the voters with contempt, they'll eventually treat you with such as well.
The question therefore becomes how long will red-wallers be willing to wait to see change? Some things can be done fairly quickly - or within a year or two - such as moving government departments or trying to attract in new businesses. New infrastructure can take a decade or more. There's a chance that as long as they see progress in areas - where there was none before - they might be patient.
I also think it's wrong to assume red wallers will flock back to Labour. They've broken their ties with the party; they might well go elsewhere if fed up with the Tories - to the Lib Dems or Greens.
In addition, Starmer's about as far away from a Red Waller as it's possible to get. So is Boris, but he's Boris. Starmer isn't.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-sleaze-row-over-boris-johnsons-downing-street-redecoration-p9ffgvhjg?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1636347415
Obviously it’s only when they report on anything science related that they make such mistakes…
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
(Ignoring office expenses, staff etc. Assume we agree that those should be provided.)
1 - Out of London MPs get a budget of £25k-£35k to pay for a rental or hotels in London, depending on circs such as children.
2 - They also get to/from constituency travel covered.
3 - So the second homes issue is a red herring. The very best piece of the 2011 reforms was that extra living / travel expenses for the job are separated from normal living expenses. That massively reduces the temptation to fiddle expenses. We owe MPs that to protect them from themselves.
4 - MPs can claim far fewer expenses than before, not more. No more "the new conservatory / duck house at my constituency is wholly and solely necessary for my work in Parliament" (the approx. declaration signed for every invoice / receipt).
5 - On your taxi Q. Clearly yes, if required.
6 - You are arguing for a return to the previous setup, which had "allowances", and resulted in industrial scale dishonesty / fiddling / fraud. Six (?) went to prison, and dozens more were lucky to get away with it.
7 - Given that generous London living allowances (or I think they can opt for the constituency) are provided, a top 3% salary is absolutely fine.
8 - I don't want MPs in it for the money. They need a good, comfortable lifestyle to allow them to do their role without challenge. Which is what we currently provide.
Get more on this story: https://trib.al/wIusSsU https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1457611893649063936/video/1
The answer is to recognize that - apart from committing distance - MPs have roughly the same number of constituents, and should therefore have similar costs.
I have my own business. I work to make sure that I always get the best value.
But when I was an employee, and there were two planes I could take, I would choose based on airmiles, not on value to my employer.
Why would MPs be different?
Much better for them to have North Shropshire constituency Ltd, that recieves £100,000/year in revenue and needs to pay all expenses out of that. If the constituency company wants to give that as cash to the MP, well he can defend it at the next General Election, and that would (of course) be taxable.
If I were an MP nowadays, I'd be *very* careful about putting in for even reasonable expenses, leaving me significantly out-of-pocket. And that's unreasonable.
But 'cash for honours' was one of the reasons for the collapse of the Liberal Party post WWI; I wonder if history is about to repeat itself.
A a bright but cold morning here. Very un-November-ish!
It costs about £100m to dispose of one hence why the MoD isn't exactly getting stuck into them.
Of course, it’s only when you know about the subject that they make such glaring errors. On things when you rely on them to inform you, there’s never any errors at all.
Also, the rules they impose on everyone else, for example taking travel and accommodation out of IR35, are getting stricter and more onerous. MPs should have to live by the same rules as the rest of us.
Maybe its about to change, but a strange thing to say when the LotOs are worse
Although interestingly, AIUI some US Navy ships are designed to be able to provide power (and clean water) to land, e.g. docks, and have been used in such a manner after natural disasters. Dura_Ace'd know more...
What I expect is low turnout. Having abandoned Labour many red wallers will think whats the point. Many people who have voted a couple of times in their lives (Brexit and 2019) won't bother, many Tories dahn sarf won't vote because green trans woke issues and corruption.
I don't think the majority of MPs think this and I don't excuse it. Personally I don't think it's ever possible to raise an MPs salary to the point where it would begin to match what a lot of them would be doing in the private sector. I'd be in favour of just restricting as much outside employment as possible.
These reactors will be capable of generating nearly 500 megawatts of power - three times as much as much as most existing nuclear submarine reactors but more than six times less than the 3.2 gigawatts that the large plant under construction at Hinkley Point will deliver.
Has it just been corrected?
Being stationed on that must be very close to, if not, the worst maritime job in the world.
On the substantive article, great news, this could and should be a huge future export industry, as well as cleaning up the domestic power supply.
If the voters see money being spent, or advancing plans for money to be spent, they'll count that. What's more, there's *talk* about investment where Labour couldn't even be bothered to talk about it.
On the hospitals/wards: if it is new investment, that's pretty much just semantics.
There are three broad types of infrastructure spending: maintenance (keeping things running), renewal (replacing work-out things) and enhancements (building capability that was not there before). If the new ward is one of the first two, then it's bad. If the latter, who cares what it's called? They're getting an enhancement. So the question becomes whether the new wards are enhancements or just replacements.
https://twitter.com/GuyReuters/status/1457612329521238017
My understanding is that generation is MW, while storage is MWh.
So eg if a storage facility to store excess wind energy had 500 MWh capacity then that would be the same as the generating capacity of a 500MW power plant running for just one hour.
Which is why the construction cost of storage capacity per MWh needs to be a teensy fraction of the cost of generation per MW - and we'd need storage in the GWh ranges to provide a reasonable MW output for a day.
Which is easier under the NPT, I think.
I was more poked by "megawatt hours of power". But I associate with thermal calculations.
“ “There’s hardened resentment built up in me that I will probably carry for the rest of my life”
@Lawton_Times on an emotional reunion for Roy Jones Jr with Park Si-hun, the two boxers at the centre of one of the Olympic Games’ greatest injustices”
https://twitter.com/timessport/status/1457603994679971841?s=21
https://youtu.be/QZY_0eXCROM
😂"When reading of the latest cock-up, scandal or crony controversy the same question floats to mind: how on earth is this person a member of parliament?"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-real-stench-in-parliament-is-mediocrity-l7qkd275j
The only difference is that MPs do need to be in 2 separate places (constituency + Westminster) so the 40% rule for an employee is not applied to an MP.
@MattW has a more detailed explanation below and I really can't be bothered with edge cases, so they get a few pounds extra it won't be more than £1000.
However, can someone explain why they wish to attack MP wages because a Tory MP decided that £80,000 wasn't enough...
https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1457621384025284609
And there are enough constituents who believe they need their problem fixed now that it's now a 24/7 job.
Wasn’t the reason that first class ticket got banned for backbenchers, that they were turning up and buying the most expensive ticket possible, rather than booking the day before as you or I might do?
There is corruption in all Parties, always has been, always will be.
Company expenses policies work on the basis of clear rules or guidance, trusting your people to make sensible judgements within these (rather than trying to cover every eventuality), and line manager sign-off. The CEO would normally have theirs signed off by the Finance Director.
MPs are in the unusual situation of not having a line manager to sign them off, but I would expect the senior people in IPSA to keep an eye on things and 'have a word' if they see something that isn't serious but looks like somebody starting to push the boundaries.
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1457623769049092097
https://twitter.com/janinegibson/status/1457624192292163585
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1457624342951518208
Do you think that 97% of the country lacks a brain?
And the outcome in terms of being screwed is about the same.
Edited for autocorrect SNAFU, although I do like the idea of Paterson's fuckups being the karma Sutra.
I think if you expand a perfectly good hospital in a constituency with a cancer or paediatric ward or whatever voters will accept that as fulfilment of a pledge. They think “new hospital” = expansion of healthcare provision
And no, it is not acceptable to get a £250 taxi home. You stay in your second home.