Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Crossover on the Betfair GE2015 outcome market: LAB majorit
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Crossover on the Betfair GE2015 outcome market: LAB majority edges back to favourite for first time since June
The charts are from Betfair’s mobile site which annoyingly don’t show dates. The price data, expressed as a perentage chance, is linked to actual trades on the betting exchange.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
F1: apparently, Azerbaijan is now on F1's radar.
It is going to be hard being an incumbent government of whatever political hue in whatever country for a good while.
The basic problem is that we have a situation in which a large proportion of people who work hard and play by the rules, to coin a phrase, have no real prospect of seeing their living standards improving; and, often more important, see no indication that their children's lives will be any better - in fact, for most, it looks like the next generation is going to have it even worse. However, at the same time there is a very visible elite which has wealth beyond imagination. This is a global problem, not just a British one.
In the medium term the refusal of unimaginably rich individuals and corporations to countenance a more equitable division of wealth is going to cause them significant problems, but until that day it will be elected governments that suffer. Thus, we can expect Labour to be kicked out after five years if it us returned to power in 2015.
It has nothing to do with voter stupidity, ungratefulness, selfishness or anything else; it has everything to do with reacting to an economy and a system that does not work for people.
The very thought of it makes me want to vote Yes on 18th September.
Re: YouGov
The major reason for the disparity in the VI between today and yesterday is mainly due to the split of the 2010 LibDems. Yesterday it was split 42/31 in favour of Labour and today it is 32/36 in favour of the LDs - which is more usual split..
Re: Trickle Down Effect
We are still suffering from a shortage of starter jobs that used to be filled by school leavers and by returners to work. Technology has and is continuing to eliminate all those low-skilled clerical jobs that used to exist. Hence there is a continuing shake-out in the public sector.
Those that do exist (like call centres) employ people who have no decision-making responsibility and can only parrot a set script. Theoretically that can be done anywhere is the world as long as there are no strong accents. Thus jobs are increasingly being split between the skilled thinkers and creators and the low-skilled dooers (sweepers etc).
Jobs for the unemployable and uneducated currently exist only at minimum wage level or below and these are being grabbed eagerly by immigrants, whilst the UK's unemployed exist unhealthily on unaffordable benefits.
It will be difficult to break this cycle of increasing division of fortune.
This is just like our argument over Watford at GE2010. I said it would go CON you were resolute that it would be taken by the LDs. What happened - CON won.
The quote below is from Mr Farage's "Flying Free" book, ch.8 p.130.
"In all that [1999 EU Parliament] campaign UKIP received 3.5 minutes of national coverage out of a total of 624 hours, and yet we won 7% of the nation's votes."
A thought: should Ed offer the LibDems a coalition even if he gets an overall majority? Is Labour's benefit from FPTP likely to last beyond the next General Election and if not, what has it to lose by offering a further PR referendum?
A healthy dose of spite notwithstanding I do think that Lab's heart is in the right place. But if ever there was a case of not growing up and clinging onto left wing student idealism then the Labour party is it.
I think we have seen that they are manifestly not able either to run the economy or to take responsibility for their actions when faced with challenges. One of the several egregious actions they took while in office and perhaps one of the most pernicious was to exclude mortgage costs from its measure of inflation by switching from RPI(X) to CPI (HICP). This meant that although the BoE had autonomy the inflation measure it tracked didn't take into account the rampant house price inflation. (Are you listening @RochdalePioneers?)
But as I say, that was a pre-2010 conversation. My point now is that I think Lab are well-meaning but incompetent (and sometimes disingenuous) while I suppose that the Cons could be portrayed as nasty but competent (and sometimes out of touch).
Bit of a bind isn't it? All very well being able to say you'll be tough on them whilst in opposition, but when in government Labour's record isn't exactly glowing is it? Besides, isn't it better to have these wealthy companies and people here in the country and paying some taxes and spending real money and employing people and investing etc., than taxing them out of here completely?
Thanks for the Ashcroft survey ... "Voters think David Cameron is ‘posh and out of touch’, Ed Miliband is a ‘weak idiot’ and Nick Clegg is a ‘spineless liar’, according to a survey".
I reassured by it.
Reassured that my views are common. Ed may still be PM if a weak idiot is the best option. If Ed were not seen as weak, he'd be seen as dangerous instead, and that would cost him at the election.
Better a harmless fool than a malevolent one. Claudius?
I can never remember whether the Left is for or against globalisation (it is for "aid", for example, but against a diminution of own-country wages - have I got that right?) but this is one of the consequences.
We are a global economy and all global citizens so we should all rejoice that people in the UK (relatively extremely well-off to start with) have effected a wealth transfer to people in LDCs and emerging economies. I mean the parallel is to take money off a banker and give it to a train driver isn't it?
Because surely the left doesn't have a little-Englander mindset which resents a transfer of welath to the less well off regardless of where they are on the planet? Does it?
Mr. W, I saw a piece on Azerbaijan a few years ago, suggesting it could become immensely wealthy due to a low population and tons of oil. Not sure what the political situation is, though.
"Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I shall be brief, as I have rather unfortunately become Prime Minister right in the middle of my exams."
The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.
Personally I don't favour each country sucking up to multinationals and pleading for a little slice of the cake. I think we have to be multinational too (EU yes, and more G8/G20 work too), and work to reignite the drive on tax havens that briefly flourished after the 2008 crisis and made a bit of genuine progress. Many other governments are quite receptive as they have the same problem, but Britain is usually hesitant as we have the Channel Islands (hello Carlotta) and worse, so we flatter ourselves that we get a bit more cake from the big boys.
Will it be easy? No. But as you imply, we are among the victims of a global protection racket, and playing along with it forever is a bad idea.
Mr. Abroad, technological progress means it's a shifting situation. Also, there was a very interesting statistical piece linked to here a week or two ago suggesting the global population will stabilise (I forget the figure, probably 9-11bn).
I'm off to bury my head in the sand.
I worry that this is the sort of soundbite that secures eg @RochdalePioneers' vote at the expense of pragmatic politics.
Are you saying GDP in UK is going to decline in the future. No sign of the long term trend of a couple of hundred years going into reverse.
It is tougher for youngsters in one sense because there are more people competing for the jobs. In my yoof 15% of students did tertiary education - now I suppose it is 40%+. But the total number of "graduate placements" has not doubled.
Basically those pesky working classes and immigrants have had the temerity to take jobs previously the preserve of nice middle class kids. Also we have exported jobs - so the world's wealth is being more evenly spread
Isn't that a good thing?
I'm fairly relaxed about Ed Miliband becoming Prime Minister if it happens. All LOTOs are characterised as "naïve" or "not up to the task" by their opponents. It happened to Cameron, Blair and even Margaret Thatcher.
To be fair, very few of those coming into Government in either 1997 or 2010 had serious Ministerial experience (Ken Clarke a notable exception) so it's just not important. All incoming leaders are by definition new and of course in global terms there will be a new US President in early 2017 and even Angela Merkel won't be there forever so the passage of time helps with the formation of experience.
I do think if I were (to quote Seth) the "blessed St George", I'd be looking at the 40% threshold for tax rather than cutting rates as well as raising personal allowances. The proportion paying higher rate tax, especially but not exclusively in London, is worth considering if you're looking at suburban marginal seats.
As for the polls, the Conservative figure on ComRes looks light but the remarkable solidity of the Labour vote remains key. Sometimes, as some on here understand so despondently, it's not about logic or reason but emotion.
My reasoning is thus:
1) Coalition. This means two parties of government to kick, reducing the national protest vote (of established parties) to just the one.
2) Ed Miliband. Not the most charismatic of leaders.
3) Cameron, Miliband, Clegg. All about the same age, all with the same background and current worldview, all with pretty similar approaches to many areas. The difference on the EU is an issue of shade, not hue. Anybody wanting something different has to look to a nationalist party or UKIP.
4) General dissatisfaction with politics, combination of expenses hangover and current identi-kit leaderships.
What he offers that make anybody think they will be better off though is beyond me.
Had Cameron been more determinedly left-wing, then UKIP's support would be even greater than it now is.
As young people say ..."How can I be expected to know anything about that, I wasn't born then." So I accept your expert opinion. I only watched the BBC series 'I Claudius' and was under the impression that the Praetorian guard thought he was a harmless fool. They sort of elected him on that basis.
OGH,
Whether Ed is weak or not is irrelevant, he just looks like softy Walter. He needs to be careful, though. Once the electorate realise he means it, rather than means well, he could be in trouble.
The "First Shall be The Last" is a biblical reference. It refers to Jesus indicating that in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be no hierarchies and in my context indicates that in this earthy world there will no majority government for one party but another Coalition government where the yellows and blues will live in perfect harmony for another five years.
As for Watford, tis true.
I regard the result as a warning from the political gods that us mere mortals are mere flesh and bones and potential pies and we should not flirt with the sin of hubris .... my ARSE excepted of course as that indeed is a gift from the gods.
You will also find that when the grim reaper comes, like Mary I of England who said Calais would be found lying in her heart, you will find "Watford" emblazoned on my non-beating organ !!
Claudius might have been thought of as a fool, but as both his predecessor and successor met sticky ends it seems better a fool than a knave.
Miliband cried over Copenhagen and played party politics over Syria (a matter of war and peace). I think I'd rather Clegg became PM.
Miliband also has yet to apologise for his comments about Mitchell.
Mostly the movement is lower middle to upper middle and vice versa, with both very top and very bottom unchanging...
And yes, I'm aware that the policy generally has gone down well, but as Ammianus Marcellinus wrote in the late 4th century (AD), it's well-known that fixing the price of commodoties leads to shortages, famines and even a total loss of supply.
Ironically, right wingers like Gove, Hannan or Carswell hardly exude gritty, down-to-earth realism do they? As for the ultimate grown-up, I wonder if Rees-Mogg still canvases with his nanny?
While I still think a hung parliament is the most likely outcome in May 2015 with Ed leading up another coalition, the window for a Tory recovery is narrowing every week, and there is little prospect of this kind of Osborne-ite Tory 'recovery' benefitting enough people to feed through to the polls.
It will be critical for Ed to trash Osborne's dreadful legacy as soon as possible after May 2015 in order to buy enough time to implement the kind of economic policy that will make a real difference to the most people. There will be howls of outrage from Tory quarters, but just as the Tories ignored their lack of mandate after 2010, Ed can ignore the screeching from his political enemies who have near enough now fatally underestimated him.
You're right, Ed'll only have a window of 4 years say which is why some sort of budget intervention a few months into the parliament setting out massively increased investment, the end of wage freezes with above inflation settlements and so on will be needed. Otherwise the economy will continue to suffer this crypto stagnation, growing but going nowhere and not feeding into the polls.
If he does this, then 2020 prospects will be much brighter, the Tories perhaps permanently diminished with their bankrupt ideology in tatters. The downside risks aren't as high as everyone thinks so long as he grabs the City by the throat and keeps it on a very short leash.
They are seeking the best environment for them (lowest tax and regulation regimes) which in turn they provide jobs, wealth, taxes etc. I know the left likes to portray this as equivalent to a protection racket but the reality is quite different.
Have we got the right balance between tax and regulation levels?
If the Cons want to remain in gov they have to earn their corn starting with the budget - no "steady as she goes" nonsense - the danger has passed - time to be radical - even if it isn't a massive giveaway in total.
I certainly do not think Labour should be criminalised.
Any decent functioning democracy needs a viable choice of left wing party. But I do think the premise for both right and left options should, as a minimum, be not wrecking the national finances. There is a good and moral argument to be had for balancing the books in a high spend high tax social democratic way. Personally I don't support this as it tends over time to lower growth and shrink the pie. There is a good and moral case, which I support, for a low spend low tax / more dynamic economy. And yes this does mean less social justice and is my preference over general impoverishment.
What there is no moral or coherent argument for whatsoever is 'high spend low tax borrow the difference forever' financial lunacy. All I want is for Labour to leran to tax the money they wish to spend instead of borrowing it.
Worth looking at http://www.yatzer.com/heydar-aliyev-center-baku-azerbaijan-zaha-hadid-architects for just 1 building
They've all got similar backgrounds, world views and aims for the future (which is pretty much just to get the job, and not feck it up enough to foul the lucrative job offers after they get booted out, cf Brown).
Anyone who thinks Milliband is going to lead us to the Sunny Uplands is as foolish as anyone who thinks he's going to lead us to destruction. He talks tough at the moment, but his wings'll get clipped once he gets into number 10. Meet the new Boss, same as the old 'un.
Avery is just an amenable Tory spinner - a nice chap but not to be taken seriously.
Fitalass is a very nice lady but I think even her colleagues on the centre-right would say she is not known for her tips. Rod however is - so we have to take him seriously even if we don't want to. That's why I am focused on his May 1 prediction - if that goes bust it may be game on.
Please will you explain the results of your suggested economic policy in terms of: interest rate, inflation rate; balance of payments; unemployment rate; exchange rates; the deficit and the debt (including cost of international borrowing).
Avery is just an amenable Tory spinner - a nice chap but not to be taken seriously.
Fitalass is a very nice lady but I think even her colleagues on the centre-right would say she is not known for her tips. Rod however is - so we have to take him seriously even if we don't want to. That's why I am focused on his May 1 prediction - if that goes bust it may be game on.
I would call it a personality defect rather than a strength, but there's no doubt it resonates.
I am willing to have a charity bet with you that Miliband's policy will not lead to power cuts - you've bought the spin line from the energy companies. They would say that, wouldn't they?
Next target should be the train companies and their insane ticketing structures.
I'd love to know the idiots buying at 7/2.
Although there will be the horses doofers of the Scottish Referendum night where the pain of the YES camp will be a sorry sight to behold. Labour supporters should use it as a dry run for the General Election - twill ease the pain so much more.
And if you really want to soften the blow further think of Basildon 1992 when all the dreams of a Kinnock premiership turned to dust as we scanned the faces of the candidates before the Returning Officer even uttered a single phrase.
But on the other hand. Unlike 2005-10 we are in a hung parliament. The Tory position in parliament is very weak. It would take very little for Labour to become the largest party and a majority is a much smaller ask than it was for Cameron in 2010.
Also, I don't bet with pbers, only a bookie/exchange.
- OGH publishes a thread analysising voteless recovery
- Market moves in favour of Labour
- OGH publishes a thread saying that punters are backing Labour
In fact, the only conclusion we can (tenatively) draw is that OGH's threads move markets, rather than any conlusion about underlying dynamics
You have just bought the spin line from the energy companies!
In 1992 Labour had to overcome a Tory majority of 100+ IIRC...
Blair was fortunate in his economic inheritance and even more fortunate in his boundaries. Had he inherited the economic situation of say 1979 or 2010, can anyone doubt he'd have been a one-term PM?
The hour-long debate will be shown on BBC2 from 7pm on Wednesday, 2 April, and will be hosted by David Dimbleby.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26443312
Or is it just nasty non-Labour supporting vested interests that he can't resist taking on?
And you are being very unfair to Osborne- he has been at the forefront of closing down tax loopholes and making life harder for tax havens. After 13 years of ignoring the problem by the guys you backed and voted with.
There is no single country solution to dealing with the growing inequities that our current economic model is producing. But that does not mean that the wealthy beyond imagination corporations and individuals will be able to go on gaming things indefinitely. In the end, there will be changes - and the longer it takes, the more radical and harmful to the interests of the super wealthy they will be.
Accordingly and for the avoidance of any doubt let me say :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
"On Wednesday 26th March at 7pm, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, will go head-to-head with UKIP leader Nigel Farage in a live hour-long programme."
http://www.lbc.co.uk/lbc-to-host-nick-v-nigel-debate-on-europe-86943
@robindbrant: Dimbleby to host. BBC says reputable polling firm will chose audience
Proof of that is he doesn't like the tax thresholds being raised as it only benefits those working.
Or like a comic book crossover if Loki took on Batman.