Categories
Why Labour’s chances of winning a majority are more than 50% – politicalbetting.com
Why Labour’s chances of winning a majority are more than 50% – politicalbetting.com
Will Labour win a majority at the next election? One potential barrier that has been much cited here is the party’s poor performance in 2019, which means that it faces a steep climb to win a majority. But others have argued that we should be thinking of its challenge not in terms of the additional seats it needs to gain, but the absolute number of seats it needs to win (326, although de facto fewer).
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The South Africa Romania match will be very one sided, with South Africa putting 60+pts on Romania.
The England Japan game will not be as easy - Japan will put up a tougher fight and should play some good rugby - but expect England to wear them down - and I am going to make a bold prediction now.....England will score one or more tries!! England by 20.
The Australia Fiji game will be close. Fiji have already shown what they can do and they will have a point to prove. Australia will have a game plan but Fiji dont care...Fiji by 6!! (Which will throw this group wide open and make bonus points essential).
And not because of its prediction.
https://twitter.com/KBAndersen/status/1703110905821602277
Jon Solomon and the Murdoch rags are leading the charge, providing every possible out-of-context fact that they can spin their way.
https://twitter.com/thomasafine/status/1703189985619308845
Right wing media attempting to rewrite history.
Again.
The allegations about Biden over Ukraine are built on a pile of lies. But so frequently repeated that it's hard even to search for the truth online.
This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense
It wasn’t just Biden who wanted reform in the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office. Republican senators did, too.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson
I can't remember the PB rule of thumb - is relative net favourability the best metric? Or just relative favourability?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407/
“Biden Inc.
Over his decades in office, ‘Middle-Class Joe’s’ family fortunes have closely tracked his political career.”
I hope that's not because I like the outcome but because I really admire the well-argued alternative angle.
Superb 👏 👏 👏
Boris Johnson reached parts no other can, or ever will again, with his Get Brexit Done anomalous election. There is no likelihood that those people will return to vote Conservatives, or indeed vote at all. Recent opinion polls back me up on this: there is vanishing party allegiance on Brexit, which was the single-issue 2019 election.
The prospect of Sunaks favourability rating improving looks slim indeed.
Will peruse the F1 markets shortly, after checking whether Verstappen got a (deserved) penalty for impeding Tsunoda yesterday.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-document/2023 Singapore Grand Prix - Infringement - Car 1 - Impeding of Car 22.pdf
F1: weighing up whether to bet now or wait and see if the group markets show up. I quite like those, surprised they aren't up already.
That, and Verstappen/Perez to not be classified at 6 each. The car looked a handful in qualifying.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Betting PostF1: decided to back Leclerc each way at 7.5 for the win. The top three were super close, and Leclerc tends to excel at street circuits.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/09/singapore-pre-race-2023.html
Biden had to borrow money from Obama to pay for his son's cancer treatment, rather than sell his house.
Since being VP, he has earned a not unusual amount of money for the books and speeches.
The allegations of financial corruption are utterly baseless. The GOP have been investigating him for five years, and have nothing but smears.
The 'impeachment enquiry' is a pathetically transparent political hit job.
Can you point to anything of substance ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/66824529
Unfortunately it is rather lost on the American electorate.
If he wins (oooh, look at that flying pig) will Hamilton then take legal action over 2021 to try to get back to 7 titles?
Edit - there is of course another albeit rather tangential link - Piquet is Verstappen's father in law.
This is a network reporter.
https://twitter.com/jparkABC/status/1703167768843968906
As President Biden left church, I shouted quite loudly across the cemetery, “Mr. President, will you pardon your son?!” But Biden did not visibly react or acknowledge the question.
I won’t feel entirely comfortable following my leanings against Brand until Roger has defended him
There is no 'will' since his son is yet to be tried.
Russell Brand is a very interesting case, having moved from the populist left substantially to the farright. He illustrates how disconnection is channelled these days into ideas like the Great Reset, first promoted by the US billionnaires' favourite the Heartland Institute, or more understandable suspicion of governments, into outright vaccine denialism, and fears of technocratic and bio-medical control.
I'd say a more natural choice in terms of the "seats won" school of thought is simply the difference between the voting intention figures for the two main parties.
It would be interesting to see the results of a similar analysis with that choice instead of X being based on leadership satisfaction.
I think the best way to test for any "mountain to climb" effect is to look at a seat level, rather than nationally. Is the swing towards Labour greater in seats it already holds? If so, then holding more seats will be an advantage. This also has the merit of having a more than sufficient sample size. I vaguely recall some analysis that showed a small effect for seats held for the first time, but no effect beyond that. But at some point I might have a go myself.
Anyway, it is an interesting and important question, and, despite disagreeing with the methodology, I think the conclusion is highly plausible.
AFAIAA there is no precedent for a race being voided because one team cheated; only for teams and/or drivers to be dq'ed. It also seems rather unfair to the entire grid for an entire race weekend to be voided because one team cheated. I therefore think his team has a fair bit of work to do.
It would also set a load of precedents, as the good doctor said below, Hamilton in 2021 being a classic example.
On another point, Massa went from the leading the race to the back of the pack because he and Ferrari mucked up their pitstop in quite a hilarious manner, not because of the crash itself = although the pitstop occurred because the safety car after the crash gave them an opportunity. So it is not as if the crash took Massa out, either.
If F1 are forced to void Singapore 2008, I can see them looking back to the 2008 Belgian grand prix and saying: "Oh, we mucked up when we gave Hamilton a 25-second penalty. He can have that win." Hence handing Hammy the title over Massa...
Yakisupa-man, a smiling superhero whose fried spaghetti brains are being eaten, is the mascot of Nogata City.
https://twitter.com/mondomascots/status/1701600554747834373
It's sad that lots of people still have such a mindset.
Here's Monbiot from earlier this year on Brand's descent into 'rightwing' idiocy, speculating that Brand is saying what his audience wants to hear.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/10/russell-brand-politics-public-figures-responsibility
But also contains the line:
"While I’m not suggesting this is his purpose, it’s a tactic used deliberately by powerful people to disarm those who might otherwise hold them to account."
But maybe it kind of is Brand's purpose, he's no doubt known for a while these accusations were coming.
In ye olden days, F1 and the FIA would be very vengeful about anyone bringing such a claim. It'll be interesting to see how the modern F1 reacts.
In 1992 Labour overperformed to the tune of about 20 seats, relative to the national swing. I don't think anyone would say they underperformed in 1997. In fact, again compared to swing, they overperformed to the tune of around 60 seats.
When I am looking at models, I tend not to delve into mathematical formulas but instead look at patterns (if only because I find parallels more interesting than formulas). This is why I've been saying we shouldn't look at 2019 as an outlier. That share of the vote, and that majority, is comparable to what you would have expected from the second election after the polls in April 2017. You could see it in 83/87, for example, or 55/59.
What disrupted the pattern was a sudden late surge to Labour in 2017 which saw May fall short. And in fact, she was not that short. A few thousand votes in fifty seats and she would have had a big majority. The late swing was also notable as a purely negative vote (just 56% of Labour voters in 2017 approved of the party's policies, which accords well with the c. 25% they were on in the polls before the campaign).
There is a naive belief in some quarters that 'Labour' voters voted Tory in 2019 to resolve Brexit and will now 'drift home.' I live in an area that used to be Labour and I don't see it.* There are many and complex reasons why Labour has been losing support for many years, of which Brexit was as much a symptom as anything. Just as in Scotland the independence movement despite its defeat was a catalyst for a major shift in party allegiance. That now appears to be changing somewhat again - good, because sheep voting for the same parties is bad for democracy and bad for the country - but how quickly this will occur in the North is another issue.
The bigger question is likely to be whether such people vote at all. Turnout might be a profitable market for betting, if there is one. But it may also be key to the scale of Tory losses and thus Labour's chance of a majority.
*Edit - I was caught out by this myself when I expected an easy Labour gain here in 2015. I had misunderstood a lack of enthusiasm for the Tories for 'would return to voting Labour.'
That could prompt interesting changes to the landscape.
Who's going to go through it?
There is I suppose a possible exception in the 1928 Equal Franchise Act, but even then Joynson-Hicks had considerable cover from Central Office who were finding much more enthusiasm for the Tories among women than among men.
Edit - the irony is it is normal for any change to the franchise to be followed by a defeat at the following election. 1868, 1885 (sort of) 1929 and 1970. I will admit 1832 and 1918 as dazzling exceptions.
Fozza have gone through a succession of team bosses. Blamed various people. Started new era after new era. And their basic stupidity remains.
Bit early in day for me to take in the maths, but it looks an interesting theory.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36686461
To add to the incongruity, this is *Partick Thistle* - a bit like being savaged by a miniature sheep,
The other important thing is that this isn't really about whether Labour are well regarded, it's about how poorly Johnson, Truss and Sunak have all been viewed. It's the lot of Prime Ministers to lose gloss as time goes on; heck, it's what happens to most of us most of the time. But none of them started with much in the first place. And I don't see who is out there who could do transformatively better for the blue team.
Renault cheated, not McLaren. Races are not linear events - remove event x and it isn't guaranteed that y and z occur. The challenge is absurd.
FWIW the answer to Taz’s question is yes to both.
It remains to be seen if the "major shift in party allegiance" is transient or not. A lot of polls suggest it is, but we won't know until the day. What I do expect is that most of the non-voters who voted Tory will go back to not voting. That in itself will be enough to sink morons like Jacob Young.
But in this case, the specific allegation seems to be that new allegations have emerged the race director knew about Piquet's cheating in advance and not only failed to stop it but helped cover it up. Which would cast doubt on the validity of the race as a whole.
My personal view is that's very improbable. It isn't however entirely out of the question.
I also think that if Massa had won the title as a result he'd have taken damn good care that no evidence casting doubt on the integrity of the race would ever emerge...
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Or am I wrong?
Edit - incidentally the loan was offered but not in the end taken.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/12/joe-biden-barack-obama-money-house-beau-family
A very interesting piece and I think the conclusion is highly likely
Whilst @OnlyLivingBoy and I do not have the same political outlook I want to congratulate him on his piece
Starmer is heading into no 10 unless something totally unexpected happens and I have accepted that, and indeed the conservative party needs a time in opposition to come to their senses, or not
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/12/joe-biden-barack-obama-money-house-beau-family
Nonetheless it doesn't speak of Biden being wealthy at the time.
His millions (relatively meagre by Washington standards) were earned after he was VP.
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
1 Is the much-discussed disgust and disdain for the Tories enough to swing seats to them in shire towns? Winning much of the red wall back is in the given category, but how about beyond that?
2 Are Tory voters in the mood to repeat 1997 and simply not vote? Labour's landslide was as much about the collapse in the Tory vote as it was Blair's popularity
3 Is the SNP problem enough to spin traditional Labour voters back to them after a near decade voting for Indy?
4 Will Labour and the LibDems be grown up enough to co-operate? If MidBeds squabbling means a Tory vote collapse still scrapes home, they need their heads examining.
Labour's basic issue is that it needs to win back the red wall, win over Scottish new nats and English blue wallers. And you can't possibly find a formula which does that. Hence Starmer going frit.
The idiocy is that despite Blair being in charge, the Blair formula isn't being resurrected. Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime was inspired. A crackdown on petty crime and lawlessness to keep that demographic happy, a push to remove squalor and desperation and addiction which fuels so much crime.
Where is Starmer's formulation of the same?
So next time you see a US politician railing against universal healthcare…
As a CON I think I would take that, certainly 250. Time to sit in the opposition for a while and develop new sensible proper CON policies.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/17/american-xl-bully-dog-ban-may-be-ineffective-in-short-term-uk-experts-warn
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
The only accusation I’ve seen online is one of a consensual relationship with a 16 year old. Hardly earth shattering. I presume there’s far more to it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/17/populist-leaders-bad-for-economy-but-hard-habit-to-break
I can't see Jacob Young young deploying "I'm local me, and she is from London: and succeeding. What has he done, other than get ignored by "Lord" Houchen and the developers.
Struck me as an unfunny diva-ish peacock who was simply fortunate in his outlook and style being very much in line with the Vice-esque edgy hipster aesthetic that was the style at the time (and interesting also how Vice from that time was also a hotbed of exploitation and abuse - there was quite a lot of culturally-sanctioned nastiness around at that time, and in retrospect the trajectory McInnes went on after isn’t actually that surprising). Also striking was the coterie of fawning lackeys around him.
At the same do Al Murray was also in attendance and can happily confirm that he was a very pleasant, intelligent and engaging man with no airs. Chatted to him for a long while about the brilliance of The Sopranos.
I think the phenomenon is more of uncancellable notoriety. These people get stronger the more loudly they're condemned ; so provoking people is in fact their currency, and actually part of the currency of our times - "owning the libs", "I love liberal tears", "white womens' tears", "pale, male and stale tears": ; pick your self-perpetuating language of provocation from the left or right.