Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PaddyPower make LAB 4-5 odds-on favourite to win target num

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited March 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PaddyPower make LAB 4-5 odds-on favourite to win target number 91 Calder Valley

As I’ve written before my betting strategy for GE2015 is to stick with national outcome punts on Labour but go with single constituencies on the Tories. I’m also betting on UKIP and the LDs whenever I spot value. Thus I’m on the purples at 6/1 in Easteigh and the yellows at the same price in Watford.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • First-ish.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    Does that mean Labour are odds-on to gain 91 seats next year?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Evens for the Conservatives to win this seat (with a first time incumbent) is a steal. I'm on.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,460
    Con hold.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    OGH plans a floral dance to the sound of the Brighouse and Rastrick Brass Band.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP6l7F7sR1s
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    If I was a gambler I would be on the Tories.Bit of a give away.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    2012 local election results for the 9 wards making up Calder Valley parliamentary seat

    Lab 9186
    Con 8310
    LDem 6100
    Green 1657
    Ind 930
    Others 512

    Wards won Con 3 Lab 3 Lib Dem 3
  • Sir_GeoffSir_Geoff Posts: 41
    edited March 2014
    I work in the area, and I'd imagine it'd be closer to the 2005 result in terms of how close the margin is, but which way exactly is hard to tell. I've not seen Labour target it like they are doing in some of the marginal seats in the area, and whilst their candidate is local enough, he may be disadvantaged by looking barely old enough to vote and having a double-barrelled name. Craig Whittaker has attracted some controversy in his personal behaviour, and his voting record may upset some of his constituents, but I'm not sure either of thsoe things were big enough on the radar of non-politicos. He has tried to put himself around as a constituency MP, but he has neither shone nor really disgraced himself in his political work. The Liberal vote will obviously drop, but I'd guess more drop back to the previous level rather than plummet, as there are enclaves of a certain kind of non-conformist that might suggest they wont all go to Labour.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014
    Putin tightens his hand on the Ukraine's gas supply stop cocks

    ITAR-TASS has been busy today celebrating Russian medals won at the Sochi Paralympics: one news release for each of 12 medals won on the opening day. But almost lost within all this cornucopia of joy, is an ominous warning to the Ukraine.

    From now on Gazprom will require upfront payments for gas supplies; there will be no discount on supplies; and, the current debt must be cleared. If not, no gas.

    Russia will limit or suspend gas supplies to Ukraine in case Ukraine’s energy company Naftigaz Ukrainy makes no advance payment for April gas imports till the end of March.

    Under the gas contract between Russia’s Gazprom and Naftogaz of January 19, 2009, the seller may partially or completely suspend the fulfillment of its liabilities in case the buyer does not fulfill its obligations.

    In line with the contract, Gazprom is to issue a bill to Naftogaz by March 16 and the latter is to pay it by the end of March. If the bill is not paid, gas supplies may be limited.

    On Friday, Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller told journalists that his company had received no payments from Naftogaz Ukrainy for February’s Russian gas supplies.

    “Today, on February 7, was the deadline for payments for February’s gas deliveries to Ukraine,” he said. “Gazprom has received no debt payments. With a discount in the first quarter, Ukraine’s overdue debt for gas has significantly increased, reaching 1.860 billion dollars.”

    “This actually means that Ukraine has stopped paying for Russian gas. This contradicts completely provisions of the contract and international trade practice,” Miller said. “We have always fulfilled and we will fulfil our contractual obligations.”

    “But we cannot supply gas for free. Either Ukraine clears the debt and pays for current deliveries, or there is a risk to return to the situation in early 2009,” he said, referring to the gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine, when Gazprom temporarily halted deliveries to Naftogaz.

    “We will keep the Russian government informed of the current situation,” he added.
  • Gasprom who are of course completely independent of the Kremlin and in no way do their bidding.....
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014

    Gasprom who are of course completely independent of the Kremlin and in no way do their bidding.....

    Does it matter?

    In the brothel of FSU politics, this is a clear case of "no money, no honey".

    Perhaps Ed will propose a freeze on Gazprom energy prices?

  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Stating the obvious but could go either way.

    Labour are supposedly doing better in Northern marginals rather than Southern.Tories seem to have a core vote of 36% in this constituency from 1997-2005 which only marginally went up in 2010.Can Labour pull 10% from the Lib Dems?
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    Sunderland Echo - Sunderland fire station to close by May next year

    "FIRE union leaders “fully expect” Sunderland Central fire station to be closed by May next year.

    The fears were raised by Dave Turner, Fire Brigade Union (FBU) North East regional secretary, at a public meeting held by Sunderland Against The Cuts.

    He told the meeting: “We are convinced that certain members of the Fire Authority want to drive through cuts deeper and harder than they need to, so they can say they were forced into it by the Coalition Government.

    “The Fire Service has become a political pawn."
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Speaking of Paddy Power, anyone else think their UK economy bets are a bit off? The net migration one is offering 5/1 on it being below 200K in a few months time, despite the fact that it's been that low not uncommonly recently. And you can get a 2/5 bet on inflation being between 1-3% in June 2015 by combining the 1-2% and 2-3% ones. Seems a bit...generous to be honest.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Given the Tory majority (12.4%) and the likely Standard Deviation of swing (3.4% last time), a 4/5 odds on a Labour win here implies a national swing of 6.7% and a national Labour lead of 6.1%.

    If you think the national swing/lead will be lower than that then the odds against the Tories in this seat are too long, and hence represent good value...
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Inflation bet is now 1/3 if you hit both of them.
  • RandomRandom Posts: 107
    AveryLP said:

    Gasprom who are of course completely independent of the Kremlin and in no way do their bidding.....

    Does it matter?

    In the brothel of FSU politics, this is a clear case of "no money, no honey".

    Perhaps Ed will propose a freeze on Gazprom energy prices?

    The complicating factor for this is gas to the EU. It's often been pointed out that one of the reasons for the EU's pusillanimity in the face of Putin's aggression is the dependency of Germany, et al. on Russian gas. What is less often noted is that the majority of this gas transits Ukraine, and when rows like this have blown up in the past Ukraine has been known to threaten to suspend transit rights. This usually produces a compromise of some sort - though granted, things are a lot more heated now.

    On this subject, and apologies for going back to the last thread, but David Herdson's otherwise very good article ends with a rather important factual error -

    " Are Europe and the US willing to let further divisions happen? A treaty with Kiev would answer that question. As would the lack of one."

    The thing is, we already have a treaty with Ukraine - it's called the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, and it involved UK, Russia and USA (with France and China signing on later) provided absolute guarantees for Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine agreeing to dispose of the nuclear arsenal it had inherited from the Soviet Union, which at the time was the 3rd largest in the world. Ukraine actually invoked the Budapest memorandum at the start of this crisis, only to get responses varying from Putin brazenly saying it wasn't valid anymore to embarrassed silence on the part of the west Europeans.

    So to answer David's point - the question has already been asked, and answered. And if you think it hasn't been very carefully noted by every country in the world thinking about acquiring nuclear weapons who might have been dissuaded from doing so by security guarantees (Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, even Japan...), then you're living in dreamland.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Austrians also reporting that one of the victims of the 777 crash was travelling on a stolen passport...
  • fitalass said:

    Sunderland Echo - Sunderland fire station to close by May next year

    "FIRE union leaders “fully expect” Sunderland Central fire station to be closed by May next year.

    The fears were raised by Dave Turner, Fire Brigade Union (FBU) North East regional secretary, at a public meeting held by Sunderland Against The Cuts.

    He told the meeting: “We are convinced that certain members of the Fire Authority want to drive through cuts deeper and harder than they need to, so they can say they were forced into it by the Coalition Government.

    “The Fire Service has become a political pawn."

    That's gonna happen up and down the country over the next few years, the real cuts haven't started yet.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014
    [deleted]
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    'BBC fear increase in TV licence fee dodging amid Government plans to decriminalise offence'
    - TV licence dodgers could escape criminal charges under radical new plans being considered by the Government.

    A BBC spokesman said: "Legislation is a matter for the Government, however changing the law could lead to higher evasion. Just a one per cent increase in evasion would lead to the loss of around £35 million, the equivalent of around 10 BBC Local Radio stations."

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/463771/BBC-fear-increase-in-TV-licence-fee-dodging-amid-Government-plans-to-decriminalise-offence
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    Comrades!

    I dedicate this song to David Herdson:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=La-ife1GT4s
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Quincel said:

    Speaking of Paddy Power, anyone else think their UK economy bets are a bit off? The net migration one is offering 5/1 on it being below 200K in a few months time, despite the fact that it's been that low not uncommonly recently. And you can get a 2/5 bet on inflation being between 1-3% in June 2015 by combining the 1-2% and 2-3% ones. Seems a bit...generous to be honest.

    UKIP keep telling us there are millions of Bulgarians and Roumanians on their way .
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121

    'BBC fear increase in TV licence fee dodging amid Government plans to decriminalise offence'
    - TV licence dodgers could escape criminal charges under radical new plans being considered by the Government.

    A BBC spokesman said: "Legislation is a matter for the Government, however changing the law could lead to higher evasion. Just a one per cent increase in evasion would lead to the loss of around £35 million, the equivalent of around 10 BBC Local Radio stations."

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/463771/BBC-fear-increase-in-TV-licence-fee-dodging-amid-Government-plans-to-decriminalise-offence

    TV Licence = TV Poll Tax

    People who don't want to watch SKY shouldn't have to pay for it!
    People who don't want to watch the BBC shouldn't have to pay for it!
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042

    Quincel said:

    Speaking of Paddy Power, anyone else think their UK economy bets are a bit off? The net migration one is offering 5/1 on it being below 200K in a few months time, despite the fact that it's been that low not uncommonly recently. And you can get a 2/5 bet on inflation being between 1-3% in June 2015 by combining the 1-2% and 2-3% ones. Seems a bit...generous to be honest.

    UKIP keep telling us there are millions of Bulgarians and Roumanians on their way .
    Who'll push inflation to 5%, I see. Well, regretting my bets now...
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014
    @Random

    The thing is, we already have a treaty with Ukraine - it's called the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, and it involved UK, Russia and USA (with France and China signing on later) provided absolute guarantees for Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine agreeing to dispose of the nuclear arsenal it had inherited from the Soviet Union, which at the time was the 3rd largest in the world. Ukraine actually invoked the Budapest memorandum at the start of this crisis, only to get responses varying from Putin brazenly saying it wasn't valid anymore to embarrassed silence on the part of the west Europeans.

    Random

    I will respond a post a time on each of the issues you raise.

    Budapest Memorandum

    The obligations on the signatories to the Budapest Memorandum are very limited.

    If nuclear weapons are used against the Ukraine, the signatories are obliged to refer the matter to the UNSC.

    Effectively this means that any of the Permanent Members of the UNSC can veto action proposed against the aggressor. So Russia can nuke Kiev and all Obama and Cameron are obliged to do is refer the matter to the UNSC and wait for Russia to veto any retaliatory action.

    Otherwise all the memorandum obliges it signatories to do is:

    to "respect"
    the Ukraine's independence and sovereignty within its territorial borders; and.

    to "refrain from":
    the threat or use of war;
    the use of economic pressure to influence the Ukraine's politics;
    and the use of nuclear arms.

    In the event the memorandum's signatiories fail to meet its undertakings to "respect" and/or "refrain from" the sanctions are limited to the requirement to:

    "Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments".

    So the Budapest Memorandum places no requirement on the guarantors to do anything except consult, which is exactly all that is being done at present.

    The realpolitik was that the Ukraine never had an independent nuclear strike capability to surrender in the first place. Russia inherited sole access to the nuclear button following the break up of the Soviet Union and willingly worked with the international community to decommission nuclear weapons capabilities and facilities located in other former republics of the USSR.

    The best the Ukraine could get in return for "seemingly" given up their nuclear weapons was "seemingly" getting protection from the UNSC Members.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,034

    Does that mean Labour are odds-on to gain 91 seats next year?

    Nope.
    For every 9 seats where the odds are like this, you'd expect them to get five. They wouldn't be odds-on to get all nine. In fact, winning all nine would be extremely unlikely.

    So winning all 91 seats, even if all were odds-on, would be very unlikely (to give an example, back in WWII, if the loss rate for a bomber mission was 7%, it was very bad - although it meant any given crew had a 93% chance of returning, to get a streak of 30 missions in a row successfully was about a one-in-nine shot. So if loss rates held at 7%, eight out of nine crews would be lost before their tour completed.
    But all 30 missions would be very "odds-on" to be survived (at odds of about 3/40 on)



  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    'BBC fear increase in TV licence fee dodging amid Government plans to decriminalise offence'
    - TV licence dodgers could escape criminal charges under radical new plans being considered by the Government.

    A BBC spokesman said: "Legislation is a matter for the Government, however changing the law could lead to higher evasion. Just a one per cent increase in evasion would lead to the loss of around £35 million, the equivalent of around 10 BBC Local Radio stations."

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/463771/BBC-fear-increase-in-TV-licence-fee-dodging-amid-Government-plans-to-decriminalise-offence

    TV Licence = TV Poll Tax

    People who don't want to watch SKY shouldn't have to pay for it!
    People who don't want to watch the BBC shouldn't have to pay for it!
    Indeed. If the BBC is as good as it's defenders claim then it'd succeed independently as a commercial channel.

  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    Does that mean Labour are odds-on to gain 91 seats next year?

    Nope.
    For every 9 seats where the odds are like this, you'd expect them to get five. They wouldn't be odds-on to get all nine. In fact, winning all nine would be extremely unlikely.

    So winning all 91 seats, even if all were odds-on, would be very unlikely (to give an example, back in WWII, if the loss rate for a bomber mission was 7%, it was very bad - although it meant any given crew had a 93% chance of returning, to get a streak of 30 missions in a row successfully was about a one-in-nine shot. So if loss rates held at 7%, eight out of nine crews would be lost before their tour completed.
    But all 30 missions would be very "odds-on" to be survived (at odds of about 3/40 on)



    I don't think it tells you enough to know. If the top ~180 seats averaged at evens, then there'd be ~90 gains on average. But that could mean a slope from target #1 (say a 95% chance) to seats with a 5% chance. Thus if target #91 is evens, ~90 gains is reasonable.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    @Random

    And if you think it hasn't been very carefully noted by every country in the world thinking about acquiring nuclear weapons who might have been dissuaded from doing so by security guarantees (Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, even Japan...), then you're living in dreamland.


    For the reasons stated in my previous post, the Ukraine never had de facto nuclear capabilities. The removal of nuclear weapons and capabilities from Ukrainian soil was a decision taken by Russia as the successor and inheritor of the USSR's nuclear powers.

    Given that reality, I am not certain that any of the countries wishing to build nuclear weapons could take any comfort from the decommissioning of nuclear weapons on the Ukraine's territory or any subsequent perceived or actual breach of the later memorandum on security assurances.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited March 2014
    Are the odds on Tories holding Waveney any good? I think they could do that, even if Labour manage to get a majority overall. I think in a lot of these southern marginals, UKIP might actually hurt Labour more than the Tories, in that the Tories' lost votes might largely go to UKIP instead of Labour which could allow the Tories to hold on on low shares of the vote. Plus, the swing against Labour in Waveney in 2010 was probably kept down by the incumbent MP.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    LDs will have manifesto commitment to raise tax free threshold to £12.5k...
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    Comrades!

    I dedicate this song to David Herdson:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=La-ife1GT4s

    Thanks. I've often wondered what a North Korean tribute to Russia would look like.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014
    @Random

    The complicating factor for this is gas to the EU. It's often been pointed out that one of the reasons for the EU's pusillanimity in the face of Putin's aggression is the dependency of Germany, et al. on Russian gas. What is less often noted is that the majority of this gas transits Ukraine, and when rows like this have blown up in the past Ukraine has been known to threaten to suspend transit rights. This usually produces a compromise of some sort - though granted, things are a lot more heated now.

    I agree that it is no parties interest for the gas supply from Russia to the EU to be interrupted.

    A break in supply would have an impact on the global economy which would go well beyond the losses of supply suffered by the Central European purchasers of Russian energy. The financial markets would panic pushing up global prices for gas (e.g. UK prices of top up suplies to Germany jumped 10% on the first day of the crisis), with knock on effects on the currency and equity markets. There would be a very real prospect of such an event forcing the Eurozone back into a deep recession and halting the recessionary exits of the UK and US.

    So no one wants a break in gas supplies.

    Where does that leave the Ukraine in threatening to withdraw transit rights in retaliation to Russia cutting off its supplies. Simple. The Ukraine will get no support either from the EU or the US for such a position. What it will get, of course, is "interim financing" to enable it to pay its bills and debt to Russia. And Russia will not cut supplies to the Ukraine if it is paid. Putin doesn't care whether it is Kiev, Brussels or Washington who picks up the tab.

    This is not a matter of taking sides, It is simply recognising that Putin is holding all the aces in the game of poker.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    fitalass said:

    Sunderland Echo - Sunderland fire station to close by May next year

    "FIRE union leaders “fully expect” Sunderland Central fire station to be closed by May next year.

    The fears were raised by Dave Turner, Fire Brigade Union (FBU) North East regional secretary, at a public meeting held by Sunderland Against The Cuts.

    He told the meeting: “We are convinced that certain members of the Fire Authority want to drive through cuts deeper and harder than they need to, so they can say they were forced into it by the Coalition Government.

    “The Fire Service has become a political pawn."

    That's gonna happen up and down the country over the next few years, the real cuts haven't started yet.

    That's as maybe - there haven't been any real cuts and there won't ever be.

    But having just read that article it is merely a claim from the union with absolutely no corroborating evidence or support. Even the newspaper couldn't find anything to back it up. It may be true and it may not, but that article doesn't take us anywhere more enlightened.

    "Dave Turner" has realised that anyone can say any old bollocks without evidence with the good chance that a good percentage of people will believe it. He should try posting on PB.

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    The Elvis Bus Pass party are apparently having a conference nobody cares about.
    Ian Millard ‏@ianrmillard 1h

    Nick Clegg, arrogant, selfserving, delusional, talking as if the LibDems have not just come behind the Elvis Bus Pass Party #ldconf
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    Labour will have a bad GE if they don't regain Calder Valley. In 2010 many many Labour voters objected to Cherie Blair's step mum being foisted on the constituency by the National Exectuive with the result that the Labour vote Dropped by about as much as the LD vote. think it is fair to assume that the vast majority oft those LAB to LD switchers will revert, plus some.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    RodCrosby said:

    LDs will have manifesto commitment to raise tax free threshold to £12.5k...

    Great news. Another step towards the ultimate repeal of the evil that is income tax.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014

    Comrades!

    I dedicate this song to David Herdson:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=La-ife1GT4s

    Comrade Sunilsky.

    The Russian boys and girls may sing like angels but they sure don't know how to tie a bow tie.

    Perhaps that is why the oligarchs are filling our public schools with their own children.

    A good education should do more than teach you how to sing.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,034
    Grandiose said:

    Does that mean Labour are odds-on to gain 91 seats next year?

    Nope.
    For every 9 seats where the odds are like this, you'd expect them to get five. They wouldn't be odds-on to get all nine. In fact, winning all nine would be extremely unlikely.

    So winning all 91 seats, even if all were odds-on, would be very unlikely (to give an example, back in WWII, if the loss rate for a bomber mission was 7%, it was very bad - although it meant any given crew had a 93% chance of returning, to get a streak of 30 missions in a row successfully was about a one-in-nine shot. So if loss rates held at 7%, eight out of nine crews would be lost before their tour completed.
    But all 30 missions would be very "odds-on" to be survived (at odds of about 3/40 on)



    I don't think it tells you enough to know. If the top ~180 seats averaged at evens, then there'd be ~90 gains on average. But that could mean a slope from target #1 (say a 95% chance) to seats with a 5% chance. Thus if target #91 is evens, ~90 gains is reasonable.
    Fair point. My unstated assumption was that somewhere after 140 or so, the probability of any gain would be extremely remote; ie that the slope wasn't uniform but would drop into safe seats that were unshiftable short of seismic landslides.

    And there'd even be chances of "wrong-way" occurrences at the top of the probability band, and the most marginal ones wouldn't be excessively certain. But yeah; we don't have enough information.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    AveryLP said:

    @Random

    The complicating factor for this is gas to the EU. It's often been pointed out that one of the reasons for the EU's pusillanimity in the face of Putin's aggression is the dependency of Germany, et al. on Russian gas. What is less often noted is that the majority of this gas transits Ukraine, and when rows like this have blown up in the past Ukraine has been known to threaten to suspend transit rights. This usually produces a compromise of some sort - though granted, things are a lot more heated now.

    I agree that it is no parties interest for the gas supply from Russia to the EU to be interrupted.

    A break in supply would have an impact on the global economy which would go well beyond the losses of supply suffered by the Central European purchasers of Russian energy. The financial markets would panic pushing up global prices for gas (e.g. UK prices of top up suplies to Germany jumped 10% on the first day of the crisis), with knock on effects on the currency and equity markets. There would be a very real prospect of such an event forcing the Eurozone back into a deep recession and halting the recessionary exits of the UK and US.

    So no one wants a break in gas supplies.

    Where does that leave the Ukraine in threatening to withdraw transit rights in retaliation to Russia cutting off its supplies. Simple. The Ukraine will get no support either from the EU or the US for such a position. What it will get, of course, is "interim financing" to enable it to pay its bills and debt to Russia. And Russia will not cut supplies to the Ukraine if it is paid. Putin doesn't care whether it is Kiev, Brussels or Washington who picks up the tab.

    This is not a matter of taking sides, It is simply recognising that Putin is holding all the aces in the game of poker.

    He is in much the same position as the NUM were in about 1980. In fact, he's probably in a weaker position. How many aces does Scargill's successor have today?

    If Russia was to turn off the taps to the Ukraine and western and central Europe, yes, it would be deeply damaging to EU countries (and, indirectly, others beyond), but it would also be damaging to Putin. Russia's own economy is hardly a bed of roses at the moment.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited March 2014

    Comrades!

    I dedicate this song to David Herdson:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=La-ife1GT4s

    Thanks. I've often wondered what a North Korean tribute to Russia would look like.
    Sun Il Kip
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    I think as the weather improves so will Conservative fortunes. I don't have the time right now to run a potential thread leader on this topic but there's a correlation between spring / summer and rising fortunes for the governing party. This is not absolute and only applies when all other things are equal i.e. there isn't some other major event to knock it off course.
    Watch and see!
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Before any Kipper catches me out, in my post to Random on Russian gas supplies to and through the Ukraine, I should have said "it is in no party's interest" not "no parties interest".

    I don't fear Nigel Farage reading PB but Alan Sked would undoubtedly be a threat.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    Are there any seats where you are betting against the LDs Mike? If not, I wonder if you too are suffering from a bit of optimism bias.

    I think the best opportunity for a single seat Con bet is for Con to win Torbay off the LDs at 9/4 with Ladbrokes. I'm not necessarily saying that they'll do it, but it looks to me like something of a toss up, and Paddy Power seem to agree as they have Con at 6/4 only. In fact the seat's a near-arb, with best odds for LD at 1/2 on, Con at 9/4, UKIP at 50/1 and Lab at 100/1. There must be value somewhere there. What clinches it for me is that Con have been well ahead of LDs in the local election results in the wards in the constituency, which is significant since the LDs tend to outperform their GE result at local elections.

    BTW regarding your and others' posts on Bermondsey yesterday, I don't disagree that Hughes has got a very large personal vote there. My point is that he needs it, because the London assembly results in the constituency revealed just how far the LDs now are when personal votes are stripped out of the equation. So I think it's going to be touch and go for Hughes, and even though he may hold on the odds of 9/4 on Lab seem to me to be worth a shot.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Sky: Ukraine observation plane comes under fire near Crimean border. No injuries...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121

    Comrades!

    I dedicate this song to David Herdson:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=La-ife1GT4s

    Thanks. I've often wondered what a North Korean tribute to Russia would look like.
    Sun Il Kip
    Comrade Moniker!

    UKIP and Russia share a common foe - the EU!
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited March 2014
    @Wulfrun_Phil Clearly you failed to read the header.

    I really resent your sort of attack which may I suggest is based on your own confirmation bias.

    Cast your eyes up the page and you will see...

    "I’m on the purples at 6/1 in Easteigh and the yellows at the same price in Watford.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    I'd be expecting the Tories to hold most of their 5,000+ majority seats, actually...
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014
    @david_herdson

    He is in much the same position as the NUM were in about 1980. In fact, he's probably in a weaker position. How many aces does Scargill's successor have today?

    If Russia was to turn off the taps to the Ukraine and western and central Europe, yes, it would be deeply damaging to EU countries (and, indirectly, others beyond), but it would also be damaging to Putin. Russia's own economy is hardly a bed of roses at the moment.


    Russia's economy is very, almost solely, dependent on mineral extraction, but it has amassed sufficient foreign currency reserves through trade surpluses to weather a short storm caused by a break in exports.

    But why would we want to force Russia into breaking supply?

    The only threat Putin is making is to turn off supplies to a country who isn't paying, hasn't paid and, on any objective and independent measure, is unlikely to be able to pay in the future.

    It is a credit control not a geo-political decision. One for the accountants not the diplomats.

    Where I do see an conflict escalation risk is in a 'terrorist' attack on the gas supply pipes and facilities which resulted in a temporary interruption in supplies. If this happened in an easily accessible area of Eastern Ukraine, I can can see Russian forces there to repair and protect the supplies quicker than you could say Ioseb Besarionis Dze Jugashvili.

    And who would complain then? Germany?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    AveryLP said:

    @Random

    The complicating factor for this is gas to the EU. It's often been pointed out that one of the reasons for the EU's pusillanimity in the face of Putin's aggression is the dependency of Germany, et al. on Russian gas. What is less often noted is that the majority of this gas transits Ukraine, and when rows like this have blown up in the past Ukraine has been known to threaten to suspend transit rights. This usually produces a compromise of some sort - though granted, things are a lot more heated now.

    I agree that it is no parties interest for the gas supply from Russia to the EU to be interrupted.

    A break in supply would have an impact on the global economy which would go well beyond the losses of supply suffered by the Central European purchasers of Russian energy. The financial markets would panic pushing up global prices for gas (e.g. UK prices of top up suplies to Germany jumped 10% on the first day of the crisis), with knock on effects on the currency and equity markets. There would be a very real prospect of such an event forcing the Eurozone back into a deep recession and halting the recessionary exits of the UK and US.

    So no one wants a break in gas supplies.

    Where does that leave the Ukraine in threatening to withdraw transit rights in retaliation to Russia cutting off its supplies. Simple. The Ukraine will get no support either from the EU or the US for such a position. What it will get, of course, is "interim financing" to enable it to pay its bills and debt to Russia. And Russia will not cut supplies to the Ukraine if it is paid. Putin doesn't care whether it is Kiev, Brussels or Washington who picks up the tab.

    This is not a matter of taking sides, It is simply recognising that Putin is holding all the aces in the game of poker.

    AveryLP said:

    @Random

    Avery, in the short term Russia wins. Energy prices go up and who is one of the biggest energy exporters at this moment.

    In the long run, Russia will not get damaged too badly but Germany will want to shake off its dependency on eastern supplies.

    It will be good for renewables. Rising energy costs always helps renewables.

    Sceptics do not realise how much renewables have advanced even in the last 5 years. Even now, on some days, the UK gets 20% of its electricity from renewables. Spain about 50%. Portugal 70%.

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    Are there any seats where you are betting against the LDs Mike? If not, I wonder if you too are suffering from a bit of optimism bias.

    I think the best opportunity for a single seat Con bet is for Con to win Torbay off the LDs at 9/4 with Ladbrokes. I'm not necessarily saying that they'll do it, but it looks to me like something of a toss up, and Paddy Power seem to agree as they have Con at 6/4 only. In fact the seat's a near-arb, with best odds for LD at 1/2 on, Con at 9/4, UKIP at 50/1 and Lab at 100/1. There must be value somewhere there. What clinches it for me is that Con have been well ahead of LDs in the local election results in the wards in the constituency, which is significant since the LDs tend to outperform their GE result at local elections.

    BTW regarding your and others' posts on Bermondsey yesterday, I don't disagree that Hughes has got a very large personal vote there. My point is that he needs it, because the London assembly results in the constituency revealed just how far the LDs now are when personal votes are stripped out of the equation. So I think it's going to be touch and go for Hughes, and even though he may hold on the odds of 9/4 on Lab seem to me to be worth a shot.

    What were the London Assembly votes in 2008 in Bermondsey . I do not know bur susepect Labour were well ahead of the Lib Dems . Re Torbay , sadly we no longer have Marcus Wood posting to tell us how the Conservatives were certainly going to gain the seat in 2010 .
  • GeoffM said:

    fitalass said:

    Sunderland Echo - Sunderland fire station to close by May next year

    "FIRE union leaders “fully expect” Sunderland Central fire station to be closed by May next year.

    The fears were raised by Dave Turner, Fire Brigade Union (FBU) North East regional secretary, at a public meeting held by Sunderland Against The Cuts.

    He told the meeting: “We are convinced that certain members of the Fire Authority want to drive through cuts deeper and harder than they need to, so they can say they were forced into it by the Coalition Government.

    “The Fire Service has become a political pawn."

    That's gonna happen up and down the country over the next few years, the real cuts haven't started yet.

    That's as maybe - there haven't been any real cuts and there won't ever be.

    But having just read that article it is merely a claim from the union with absolutely no corroborating evidence or support. Even the newspaper couldn't find anything to back it up. It may be true and it may not, but that article doesn't take us anywhere more enlightened.

    "Dave Turner" has realised that anyone can say any old bollocks without evidence with the good chance that a good percentage of people will believe it. He should try posting on PB.

    We've had significant budget cuts, but mostly managed to ride them out by by creative accounting, and things like keeping appliances longer, and a wage freeze. There will be real cuts over the next few years, though. There's no where else left to go apart from shutting stations and redundancies.
    Still, we've just had a swanky new HQ built, so all the office wallahs are happy.

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    Yes Mike, I overlooked your point about Eastleigh and for that I apologise.

    However, I must take issue with the tone of your response. How should I phrase a post which doesn't agree with your viewpoint in a way that you won't interpret as an "attack", because it wasn't meant in that way.

    Yes, I may suffer from confirmation bias when I place bets. I'm well aware of the trap just as you are and I try to guard against it just as you do. I happened to make money on Sanders holding off the Conservatives at GE 2010 in Torbay, and now I'm advocating the opposite bet. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that I subconsciously don't suffer from bias despite my best efforts, and I suggest that you don't know whether you do either.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Good evening, everyone.

    Forget who suggested backing Scotland (which I pooh-poohed), but it's looking like a decent bet right now.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014
    @surbiton

    Avery, in the short term Russia wins. Energy prices go up and who is one of the biggest energy exporters at this moment.

    In the long run, Russia will not get damaged too badly but Germany will want to shake off its dependency on eastern supplies.

    It will be good for renewables. Rising energy costs always helps renewables.

    Sceptics do not realise how much renewables have advanced even in the last 5 years. Even now, on some days, the UK gets 20% of its electricity from renewables. Spain about 50%. Portugal 70%.


    Surby, shouldn't you be checking those sales figures?

    Security of energy supplies, "resilience", or whatever the energy bods call it is essential for all countries and Germany are potentially paying the price for abandoning their nuclear energy programme.

    Windmills are alright, if inefficient, but not in my back yard. They spoil the park view from the East Wing.

    Perhaps Angela can persuade the ex-advertising agents running the new government in Kiev to allow the steppes of Eastern Ukraine to be populated with German manufactured windmills? The Ukrainians may then earn enough in German green subsidies to be able to pay their gas bill.

  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    With Lib Dems performing badly in some areas in local elections, I wonder whether more of their votes are going to the Tories, rather than Labour, than the polls are currently showing.
  • RandomRandom Posts: 107
    AveryLP said:

    @Random

    And if you think it hasn't been very carefully noted by every country in the world thinking about acquiring nuclear weapons who might have been dissuaded from doing so by security guarantees (Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, even Japan...), then you're living in dreamland.


    For the reasons stated in my previous post, the Ukraine never had de facto nuclear capabilities. The removal of nuclear weapons and capabilities from Ukrainian soil was a decision taken by Russia as the successor and inheritor of the USSR's nuclear powers.

    No, the Ukraine never had de facto capabilities, as in control of the launch keys and codes (I say probably advisedly - at one point President Kuchma was talking of retaining the SS-24s on Ukraine's territory, which at least implied he thought he had control of them). But I hope you would agree it would be a lot easier to build your own nukes if you can seize existing ones and reverse-engineer the controls than it is to build them from scratch , this is the reason why there was so much concern about rogue regimes/terrorists getting ex-Soviet nukes after all.

    And no, the dismantling was not a unilateral decision taken by Russia, it was part of a multilateral negotiation of which the Budapest memorandum was but a part.
    Given that reality, I am not certain that any of the countries wishing to build nuclear weapons could take any comfort from the decommissioning of nuclear weapons on the Ukraine's territory or any subsequent perceived or actual breach of the later memorandum on security assurances.
    I'm not sure what you're saying here if it isn't agreeing with me - anybody considering abandoning the search for nuclear weapons will not be in the slightest bit comforted by what has happened to Ukraine. Yes, the Budapest memorandum did not mandate military assistance to Ukraine in the event it was invaded (though I've seen legal advise to the effect that it would have authorised it) - but it did mandate respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and we've seen just how little that was worth.

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    hucks67 said:

    With Lib Dems performing badly in some areas in local elections, I wonder whether more of their votes are going to the Tories, rather than Labour, than the polls are currently showing.

    In most of these local elections where the Lib Dems are doing badly , their votes are not going anywhere simply staying at home .
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    GeoffM said:

    fitalass said:

    Sunderland Echo - Sunderland fire station to close by May next year

    "FIRE union leaders “fully expect” Sunderland Central fire station to be closed by May next year.

    The fears were raised by Dave Turner, Fire Brigade Union (FBU) North East regional secretary, at a public meeting held by Sunderland Against The Cuts.

    He told the meeting: “We are convinced that certain members of the Fire Authority want to drive through cuts deeper and harder than they need to, so they can say they were forced into it by the Coalition Government.

    “The Fire Service has become a political pawn."

    That's gonna happen up and down the country over the next few years, the real cuts haven't started yet.

    That's as maybe - there haven't been any real cuts and there won't ever be.

    But having just read that article it is merely a claim from the union with absolutely no corroborating evidence or support. Even the newspaper couldn't find anything to back it up. It may be true and it may not, but that article doesn't take us anywhere more enlightened.

    "Dave Turner" has realised that anyone can say any old bollocks without evidence with the good chance that a good percentage of people will believe it. He should try posting on PB.

    We've had significant budget cuts, but mostly managed to ride them out by by creative accounting, and things like keeping appliances longer, and a wage freeze. There will be real cuts over the next few years, though. There's no where else left to go apart from shutting stations and redundancies.
    Still, we've just had a swanky new HQ built, so all the office wallahs are happy.

    Well, your brigade could shut and sell that swanky new HQ and sack at least 50% of the non-fire and rescue trained people employed there. That would save quite a few quid and not affect service delivery performance in anyway that anyone would notice.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780

    Are there any seats where you are betting against the LDs Mike? If not, I wonder if you too are suffering from a bit of optimism bias.

    I think the best opportunity for a single seat Con bet is for Con to win Torbay off the LDs at 9/4 with Ladbrokes. I'm not necessarily saying that they'll do it, but it looks to me like something of a toss up, and Paddy Power seem to agree as they have Con at 6/4 only. In fact the seat's a near-arb, with best odds for LD at 1/2 on, Con at 9/4, UKIP at 50/1 and Lab at 100/1. There must be value somewhere there. What clinches it for me is that Con have been well ahead of LDs in the local election results in the wards in the constituency, which is significant since the LDs tend to outperform their GE result at local elections.

    BTW regarding your and others' posts on Bermondsey yesterday, I don't disagree that Hughes has got a very large personal vote there. My point is that he needs it, because the London assembly results in the constituency revealed just how far the LDs now are when personal votes are stripped out of the equation. So I think it's going to be touch and go for Hughes, and even though he may hold on the odds of 9/4 on Lab seem to me to be worth a shot.

    What were the London Assembly votes in 2008 in Bermondsey . I do not know bur susepect Labour were well ahead of the Lib Dems . Re Torbay , sadly we no longer have Marcus Wood posting to tell us how the Conservatives were certainly going to gain the seat in 2010 .
    In 2008, the LDs won 6 wards and Lab the other 3. In 2012, Lab won 8 wards and Con 1. Those are just the wards in the parliamentary constituency of Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,709
    Now this is interesting. If UKIP get any MPs at the next election, it will mainly be at Labour's expense:

    'It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield, Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/08/senior-ukip-members-backed-pact-bnp
  • Whatever happened to Marcus Wood btw?
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    Are there any seats where you are betting against the LDs Mike? If not, I wonder if you too are suffering from a bit of optimism bias.

    I think the best opportunity for a single seat Con bet is for Con to win Torbay off the LDs at 9/4 with Ladbrokes. I'm not necessarily saying that they'll do it, but it looks to me like something of a toss up, and Paddy Power seem to agree as they have Con at 6/4 only. In fact the seat's a near-arb, with best odds for LD at 1/2 on, Con at 9/4, UKIP at 50/1 and Lab at 100/1. There must be value somewhere there. What clinches it for me is that Con have been well ahead of LDs in the local election results in the wards in the constituency, which is significant since the LDs tend to outperform their GE result at local elections.

    BTW regarding your and others' posts on Bermondsey yesterday, I don't disagree that Hughes has got a very large personal vote there. My point is that he needs it, because the London assembly results in the constituency revealed just how far the LDs now are when personal votes are stripped out of the equation. So I think it's going to be touch and go for Hughes, and even though he may hold on the odds of 9/4 on Lab seem to me to be worth a shot.

    What were the London Assembly votes in 2008 in Bermondsey . I do not know bur susepect Labour were well ahead of the Lib Dems . Re Torbay , sadly we no longer have Marcus Wood posting to tell us how the Conservatives were certainly going to gain the seat in 2010 .
    In 2008, the LDs won 6 wards and Lab the other 3. In 2012, Lab won 8 wards and Con 1. Those are just the wards in the parliamentary constituency of Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
    Sorry , I don't think those figures you give for 2008 are correct . Looking at the ward figures for the Assembly list on the data,london;gov.uk seems to give rather different figures although the site is hard to use .
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    Now this is interesting. If UKIP get any MPs at the next election, it will mainly be at Labour's expense:

    'It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield, Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/08/senior-ukip-members-backed-pact-bnp

    UKIP chances in Ashfield are practically zero , the CC results show it is still a Labour/Lib Dem contest . I doubt that the Plymouth seat or Walsall North have them with a good chance either though the elections in May will give a better idea . Waveney and Grimsby possibly .
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited March 2014
    @Random
    Given that reality, I am not certain that any of the countries wishing to build nuclear weapons could take any comfort from the decommissioning of nuclear weapons on the Ukraine's territory or any subsequent perceived or actual breach of the later memorandum on security assurances.
    I'm not sure what you're saying here if it isn't agreeing with me - anybody considering abandoning the search for nuclear weapons will not be in the slightest bit comforted by what has happened to Ukraine. Yes, the Budapest memorandum did not mandate military assistance to Ukraine in the event it was invaded (though I've seen legal advise to the effect that it would have authorised it) - but it did mandate respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and we've seen just how little that was worth.

    Random

    I concede the paragraph of mine you quote was muddled. I seem to have combined two unconnected observations into one.

    Let me try again.

    The decommissioning of nuclear capability in former Soviet Union republics was really a special case and doesn't set any precedents for those countries which are currently causing concern about their nuclear ambitions.

    The lack of a military response to Russian aggression by signatories to the Budapest Memorandum is not really connected to 'nuclear proliferation or decommissioning'. It doesn't therefore set a precedent for not acting against other countries who are (or may be) building nuclear weapons, either in breach, or independently, of any treaty they may have entered into.

    The problem in the Ukraine has arisen due to the country's borders being a construct of the USSR, when it was assumed that it would remain a constituent part of a Moscow controlled empire rather than an independent country.

    The border problems have become a present source of conflict due to the differential in economic (and cultural?) development between the Warsaw Pact countries now part of the EU and NATO and the Ukraine.

    We have a Russian speaking East and South of the country whose medium term future and prosperity is dependent upon integration in Russia's broadly successful economy and governance, and, an Eastern part, principally of Ukrainian ethnic origin who sees their only hope of prosperity being in incorporation within the EU and NATO.

    This division is further exacerbated by historical differences, such as who was on which side during WWII.

    In my view the two sides are irreconcilable and secession of the West and South would offer the East its best hope of a secure and prosperous future.

    A more ambitious and universally beneficial solution would be bringing the whole Russo-Slavic bloc, including Russia, into a closer co-operation with the EU, with multi-lateral interim support for the Ukraine being a first step. But that just seems beyond the ambitions and imaginative reach of the current players on all sides.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    Now this is interesting. If UKIP get any MPs at the next election, it will mainly be at Labour's expense:

    'It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield, Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/08/senior-ukip-members-backed-pact-bnp

    UKIP chances in Ashfield are practically zero , the CC results show it is still a Labour/Lib Dem contest . I doubt that the Plymouth seat or Walsall North have them with a good chance either though the elections in May will give a better idea . Waveney and Grimsby possibly .
    Looking at the last available results for Plymouth ( 2012 ) the best UKIP performances were in the 5 Plymstock and Plympton wards which are in the Devon SW parliamentary seat .
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    UKIP simply aren't going to get enough votes in 2015 to make seat gains at all likely.
    With the possible exception of a previous good by-election performance (Eastleigh, still a remote possibility, imho) and their "stars" (Farage, Nuttall) perhaps pulling off a sensation (unlikely, since they've yet to even choose a constituency...)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Bit shocked by the plane disappearance because I was on that flight a couple of years ago.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    RodCrosby said:

    LDs will have manifesto commitment to raise tax free threshold to £12.5k...

    Good policy. I hope the Tories match it.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780

    Are there any seats where you are betting against the LDs Mike? If not, I wonder if you too are suffering from a bit of optimism bias.

    I think the best opportunity for a single seat Con bet is for Con to win Torbay off the LDs at 9/4 with Ladbrokes. I'm not necessarily saying that they'll do it, but it looks to me like something of a toss up, and Paddy Power seem to agree as they have Con at 6/4 only. In fact the seat's a near-arb, with best odds for LD at 1/2 on, Con at 9/4, UKIP at 50/1 and Lab at 100/1. There must be value somewhere there. What clinches it for me is that Con have been well ahead of LDs in the local election results in the wards in the constituency, which is significant since the LDs tend to outperform their GE result at local elections.

    BTW regarding your and others' posts on Bermondsey yesterday, I don't disagree that Hughes has got a very large personal vote there. My point is that he needs it, because the London assembly results in the constituency revealed just how far the LDs now are when personal votes are stripped out of the equation. So I think it's going to be touch and go for Hughes, and even though he may hold on the odds of 9/4 on Lab seem to me to be worth a shot.

    What were the London Assembly votes in 2008 in Bermondsey . I do not know bur susepect Labour were well ahead of the Lib Dems . Re Torbay , sadly we no longer have Marcus Wood posting to tell us how the Conservatives were certainly going to gain the seat in 2010 .
    In 2008, the LDs won 6 wards and Lab the other 3. In 2012, Lab won 8 wards and Con 1. Those are just the wards in the parliamentary constituency of Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
    Sorry , I don't think those figures you give for 2008 are correct . Looking at the ward figures for the Assembly list on the data,london;gov.uk seems to give rather different figures although the site is hard to use .
    We are I think using the same source. I'd been using the figures for the Assembly constituency vote rather than the list vote, ward by ward. (They are to the right of the list figures on the same spreadsheet). The LDs got a higher share of the constituency vote than the list vote in Bermondsey and OS in both 2012 and 2008, but still won none of the 9 wards in 2012 on the constituency vote, in contrast to the 6 they won in 2008.

    PS. Given your earlier comparison with Marcus Wood telling us how the Conservatives were "certainly going to gain" Torbay in 2010, note that I happened to make money from the actual outcome there. I'm not telling people that Lab is "certainly" going to gain Bermondsey and OS in 2015. What I'm saying that it's going to be pretty close and that 9/4 therefore represents very good value.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Labour selections:

    Cleethorpes: Peter Keith
    Enfield Southgate: Bambos Charalambous
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Fair enough , I find that website almost impossible to use . FWIW , I think your 6/4 on the Conservatives to win Torbay is a better value bet than Labour at 9/4 for Bermondsey .
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    AveryLP said:

    @Random

    Given that reality, I am not certain that any of the countries wishing to build nuclear weapons could take any comfort from the decommissioning of nuclear weapons on the Ukraine's territory or any subsequent perceived or actual breach of the later memorandum on security assurances.


    A more ambitious and universally beneficial solution would be bringing the whole Russo-Slavic bloc, including Russia, into a closer co-operation with the EU, with multi-lateral interim support for the Ukraine being a first step. But that just seems beyond the ambitions and imaginative reach of the current players on all sides.


    I agree, We need to consider why it is that Russia is both mesmerised and anxious about the EU. Russia is like Britain a country on the margin of Europe, made great by both geography and history, not feeling fully part of Europe.

    I too would want to see the Russo Slavic block more integrated into Europe, possibly with asso.ciate member status
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564
    Mark Senior's data on 2012 ward results makes it look a fairly clear Labour win, unless the party's position declines sharply from then.

    Now this is interesting. If UKIP get any MPs at the next election, it will mainly be at Labour's expense:

    'It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield, Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/08/senior-ukip-members-backed-pact-bnp

    UKIP chances in Ashfield are practically zero , the CC results show it is still a Labour/Lib Dem contest . I doubt that the Plymouth seat or Walsall North have them with a good chance either though the elections in May will give a better idea . Waveney and Grimsby possibly .
    I can see why they picked Ashfield - it's part of a former mining area with a history of flirting with the far right, and if UKIP were really motoring with their assault on Labour voters this is the sort lof seat where it would work. But, so far, they seem not to be.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Now this is interesting. If UKIP get any MPs at the next election, it will mainly be at Labour's expense:

    'It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield, Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/08/senior-ukip-members-backed-pact-bnp

    That all sounds pretty ignorant to me. Remember this chart from a couple of days ago.

    http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/03/06/ukip-is-taking-far-more-votes-away-from-the-tories-than-any-other-party/

    This is the current Westminster bubble narrative that ignores real number.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited March 2014
    I don't know who it is who thinks Ashfield, Walsall North and Waveney are possible UKIP gains, but they clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about. I advise them to study the raw data for five minutes.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,460
    AndyJS said:

    Bit shocked by the plane disappearance because I was on that flight a couple of years ago.

    Without getting my tinfoil hat out, it would be interesting to know the odds of two people travelling on the same flight with false passports. I guess there are many people using false credentials, but two on the same flight? Either security is routinely lax and/or they were travelling together.

    On the other hand, coincidences do happen. They might have been travelling under false credentials, but the accident is unrelated to their presence.

    There are also rumours that the Russian was also not on board.

    It may be worth remembering this story, where many passengers and crew were injured fighting off hijackers on an internal Chinese flight (although some believe they were not hijackers). Two of the hijackers were tied up on the flight, and so badly beaten that they later died.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-uighurs-try-to-hijack-plane-with-crutches-and-get-tortured-2012-8
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/chinese-passengers-crew-thwart-attempted-plane-hijacking/
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/11/china-sentences-uighurs-death-plane

    I'm also surprised (in a non-expert way) that plane-specific debris has reportedly not been found. It's hardly a quiet area of ocean. They found debris from AF447 within a couple of days, and that plane crashed in a remote part of the South Atlantic.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    AndyJS said:

    Bit shocked by the plane disappearance because I was on that flight a couple of years ago.

    Without getting my tinfoil hat out, it would be interesting to know the odds of two people travelling on the same flight with false passports. I guess there are many people using false credentials, but two on the same flight? Either security is routinely lax and/or they were travelling together.

    On the other hand, coincidences do happen. They might have been travelling under false credentials, but the accident is unrelated to their presence.

    There are also rumours that the Russian was also not on board.

    It may be worth remembering this story, where many passengers and crew were injured fighting off hijackers on an internal Chinese flight (although some believe they were not hijackers). Two of the hijackers were tied up on the flight, and so badly beaten that they later died.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-uighurs-try-to-hijack-plane-with-crutches-and-get-tortured-2012-8
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/chinese-passengers-crew-thwart-attempted-plane-hijacking/
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/11/china-sentences-uighurs-death-plane

    I'm also surprised (in a non-expert way) that plane-specific debris has reportedly not been found. It's hardly a quiet area of ocean. They found debris from AF447 within a couple of days, and that plane crashed in a remote part of the South Atlantic.
    Did it not become dark after they found the oil spill ?

    Talking about two false passports. I don't know if anyone has already mentioned this or not:

    How do you reduce the probability that there is a bomb in the aircraft ?

    Ans: Carry one yourself. What are the chances that there would be two bombs on the aircraft ?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I see that there was an unusually large swing to LD in 2010 (17+%); with a slight move away from the Conservatives (-2.2%). This seems to be against national trend, but came within a whisker of of a spectacular gain. Was this a local issue? Or was it resentment at a party insider being parachuted into a safe seat?

    Mark Senior's data on 2012 ward results makes it look a fairly clear Labour win, unless the party's position declines sharply from then.

    Now this is interesting. If UKIP get any MPs at the next election, it will mainly be at Labour's expense:

    'It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield, Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/08/senior-ukip-members-backed-pact-bnp

    UKIP chances in Ashfield are practically zero , the CC results show it is still a Labour/Lib Dem contest . I doubt that the Plymouth seat or Walsall North have them with a good chance either though the elections in May will give a better idea . Waveney and Grimsby possibly .
    I can see why they picked Ashfield - it's part of a former mining area with a history of flirting with the far right, and if UKIP were really motoring with their assault on Labour voters this is the sort lof seat where it would work. But, so far, they seem not to be.

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    Mark Senior's data on 2012 ward results makes it look a fairly clear Labour win, unless the party's position declines sharply from then.

    Now this is interesting. If UKIP get any MPs at the next election, it will mainly be at Labour's expense:

    'It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield, Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/08/senior-ukip-members-backed-pact-bnp

    UKIP chances in Ashfield are practically zero , the CC results show it is still a Labour/Lib Dem contest . I doubt that the Plymouth seat or Walsall North have them with a good chance either though the elections in May will give a better idea . Waveney and Grimsby possibly .
    I can see why they picked Ashfield - it's part of a former mining area with a history of flirting with the far right, and if UKIP were really motoring with their assault on Labour voters this is the sort lof seat where it would work. But, so far, they seem not to be.

    I don't think my data from the 2012 locals shows a clear Labour win in Calder Valley at all . They were in a pretty narrow lead in 2012 ( 2011 had the Conservatives in a similar sized lead ) .FWIW I would say too close to call at this stage but Conservatives narrow favourites .
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780

    Fair enough , I find that website almost impossible to use . FWIW , I think your 6/4 on the Conservatives to win Torbay is a better value bet than Labour at 9/4 for Bermondsey .

    I think I agree with you on that, especially since it's also 9/4 not 6/4 at Torbay.

    For information, aggregated total constituency votes in Bermondsey and Old Southwark at the 2012 Assembly elections split as follows:
    Lab 43.4%
    LD 22.2%
    Con 18.3%
    Green 10.5%
    UKIP 4.0%
    Socialist 1.7%
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    I see that there was an unusually large swing to LD in 2010 (17+%); with a slight move away from the Conservatives (-2.2%). This seems to be against national trend, but came within a whisker of of a spectacular gain. Was this a local issue? Or was it resentment at a party insider being parachuted into a safe seat?

    Mark Senior's data on 2012 ward results makes it look a fairly clear Labour win, unless the party's position declines sharply from then.

    Now this is interesting. If UKIP get any MPs at the next election, it will mainly be at Labour's expense:

    'It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield, Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/08/senior-ukip-members-backed-pact-bnp

    UKIP chances in Ashfield are practically zero , the CC results show it is still a Labour/Lib Dem contest . I doubt that the Plymouth seat or Walsall North have them with a good chance either though the elections in May will give a better idea . Waveney and Grimsby possibly .
    I can see why they picked Ashfield - it's part of a former mining area with a history of flirting with the far right, and if UKIP were really motoring with their assault on Labour voters this is the sort lof seat where it would work. But, so far, they seem not to be.

    A combination of the two. Jason Zadrozny is a popular local councillor and parachuting Gloria del Piero into the seat would have been resented by some voters.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,709

    This is the current Westminster bubble narrative that ignores real number.

    The claims are being made by academics from Nottingham and Manchester.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121

    Mark Senior's data on 2012 ward results makes it look a fairly clear Labour win, unless the party's position declines sharply from then.

    Now this is interesting. If UKIP get any MPs at the next election, it will mainly be at Labour's expense:

    'It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield, Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/08/senior-ukip-members-backed-pact-bnp

    UKIP chances in Ashfield are practically zero , the CC results show it is still a Labour/Lib Dem contest . I doubt that the Plymouth seat or Walsall North have them with a good chance either though the elections in May will give a better idea . Waveney and Grimsby possibly .
    I can see why they picked Ashfield - it's part of a former mining area with a history of flirting with the far right, and if UKIP were really motoring with their assault on Labour voters this is the sort lof seat where it would work. But, so far, they seem not to be.

    A history of flirting with the far right? How so?
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Totally off topic but in case some of you do not know , the 2009 Kew Gardens reverse 50 pence pieces are currently selling on Ebay for around £ 30 . Worth checking the change in your pockets . The mintage figure was 210,000 .
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited March 2014

    Now this is interesting. If UKIP get any MPs at the next election, it will mainly be at Labour's expense:

    'It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield, Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/08/senior-ukip-members-backed-pact-bnp

    UKIP chances in Ashfield are practically zero , the CC results show it is still a Labour/Lib Dem contest . I doubt that the Plymouth seat or Walsall North have them with a good chance either though the elections in May will give a better idea . Waveney and Grimsby possibly .
    It would make sense if anti-EU/pro-UKIP support was higher in areas where the fishing industry used to be a big employer.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Totally off topic but in case some of you do not know , the 2009 Kew Gardens reverse 50 pence pieces are currently selling on Ebay for around £ 30 . Worth checking the change in your pockets . The mintage figure was 210,000 .

    Stupid question: Will it actually say "Kew Gardens" ?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    AndyJS said:

    I see that there was an unusually large swing to LD in 2010 (17+%); with a slight move away from the Conservatives (-2.2%). This seems to be against national trend, but came within a whisker of of a spectacular gain. Was this a local issue? Or was it resentment at a party insider being parachuted into a safe seat?

    Mark Senior's data on 2012 ward results makes it look a fairly clear Labour win, unless the party's position declines sharply from then.

    Now this is interesting. If UKIP get any MPs at the next election, it will mainly be at Labour's expense:

    'It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield, Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/08/senior-ukip-members-backed-pact-bnp

    UKIP chances in Ashfield are practically zero , the CC results show it is still a Labour/Lib Dem contest . I doubt that the Plymouth seat or Walsall North have them with a good chance either though the elections in May will give a better idea . Waveney and Grimsby possibly .
    I can see why they picked Ashfield - it's part of a former mining area with a history of flirting with the far right, and if UKIP were really motoring with their assault on Labour voters this is the sort lof seat where it would work. But, so far, they seem not to be.

    A combination of the two. Jason Zadrozny is a popular local councillor and parachuting Gloria del Piero into the seat would have been resented by some voters.
    But she is now the incumbent and good looking !
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Labour will hold Ashfield next year with a huge increase in their majority — no doubt about that.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,460
    surbiton said:

    Totally off topic but in case some of you do not know , the 2009 Kew Gardens reverse 50 pence pieces are currently selling on Ebay for around £ 30 . Worth checking the change in your pockets . The mintage figure was 210,000 .

    Stupid question: Will it actually say "Kew Gardens" ?
    Images and story here:
    http://www.chards.co.uk/news/2009-kew-gardens-fifty-pence-rare-coin/
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    Mark Senior's data on 2012 ward results makes it look a fairly clear Labour win, unless the party's position declines sharply from then.

    Now this is interesting. If UKIP get any MPs at the next election, it will mainly be at Labour's expense:

    'It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield, Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/08/senior-ukip-members-backed-pact-bnp

    UKIP chances in Ashfield are practically zero , the CC results show it is still a Labour/Lib Dem contest . I doubt that the Plymouth seat or Walsall North have them with a good chance either though the elections in May will give a better idea . Waveney and Grimsby possibly .
    I can see why they picked Ashfield - it's part of a former mining area with a history of flirting with the far right, and if UKIP were really motoring with their assault on Labour voters this is the sort lof seat where it would work. But, so far, they seem not to be.

    A history of flirting with the far right? How so?
    Waveney?! A Lab/Con marginal that will be contested by the same two men as in 2005 and 2010. UKIP on 5.2% before. Big ask.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Fair enough , I find that website almost impossible to use . FWIW , I think your 6/4 on the Conservatives to win Torbay is a better value bet than Labour at 9/4 for Bermondsey .

    I think I agree with you on that, especially since it's also 9/4 not 6/4 at Torbay.

    For information, aggregated total constituency votes in Bermondsey and Old Southwark at the 2012 Assembly elections split as follows:
    Lab 43.4%
    LD 22.2%
    Con 18.3%
    Green 10.5%
    UKIP 4.0%
    Socialist 1.7%
    A lot of former Labour voters in Bermondsey voted for Hughes because they liked him and he was no Tory after all. Many were the legacy of the 1983 by-election when a lot of Labour supporters could not stomach Peter Tatchell. The irony !!

    However, the Con Dem coalition changes things drastically ! Name the constituency with the highest percentage of council housing dwellers ?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    This is the current Westminster bubble narrative that ignores real number.

    The claims are being made by academics from Nottingham and Manchester.
    The polling is pretty clear and I'm not trying to hype up a book I've written that's just about to be published.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:

    Totally off topic but in case some of you do not know , the 2009 Kew Gardens reverse 50 pence pieces are currently selling on Ebay for around £ 30 . Worth checking the change in your pockets . The mintage figure was 210,000 .

    Stupid question: Will it actually say "Kew Gardens" ?
    Images and story here:
    http://www.chards.co.uk/news/2009-kew-gardens-fifty-pence-rare-coin/
    Ah ! Very impressive. Thanks.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,709

    This is the current Westminster bubble narrative that ignores real number.

    The claims are being made by academics from Nottingham and Manchester.
    The polling is pretty clear and I'm not trying to hype up a book I've written that's just about to be published.

    So originally it was Westminster bubble 'ignorance' now it's intellectual dishonesty to assist book sales. I see.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    AndyJS said:

    Labour will hold Ashfield next year with a huge increase in their majority — no doubt about that.

    The CC results were still very close though distorted by the massive Independent vote in Selston ward , I am sure you have the constituency figures .
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    Totally off topic but in case some of you do not know , the 2009 Kew Gardens reverse 50 pence pieces are currently selling on Ebay for around £ 30 . Worth checking the change in your pockets . The mintage figure was 210,000 .

    Stupid question: Will it actually say "Kew Gardens" ?
    Images and story here:
    http://www.chards.co.uk/news/2009-kew-gardens-fifty-pence-rare-coin/
    Ah ! Very impressive. Thanks.
    Ouch!I gave one to the woman at the canteen till two days before I heard about this.And I remember thinking this coin looks different!
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited March 2014

    Now this is interesting. If UKIP get any MPs at the next election, it will mainly be at Labour's expense:

    'It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield, Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/08/senior-ukip-members-backed-pact-bnp

    "Ukip is widely seen as not having a credible manifesto "

    I've just read Mr Farage's "Flying free" book. That suggests he/UKIP will have a Direct Democracy platform at the 2015 general election.

    "I hope that we can introduce direct democracy on something akin to the Swiss model, where the signatures of a given number of people on any issue may generate a plebiscite at national or local level. … I want to see county councils and individual communities afforded far more power over their own destinies. …. I also believe that the future of the British Union lies in federalism. The component nations of the Union should govern themselves" Flying Free, Epilogue, p.289

    https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/flying-free-paperback


  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564



    I can see why they picked Ashfield - it's part of a former mining area with a history of flirting with the far right, and if UKIP were really motoring with their assault on Labour voters this is the sort lof seat where it would work. But, so far, they seem not to be.

    A history of flirting with the far right? How so?
    The area (though not especially Ashfield) was one of the strongest BNP patches before the party fell apart, and their summer festival was regularly in nearby Amber Valley. Even Combat 88 had a local group. A friend who ran an Asian restaurant in nearby Ilkeston found the atmosphere from some local people distinctly unwelcoming - stones through the window, lots of "jovial" shouts to him as he went about his business. Naturally most people weren't like that, but there was enough nastiness to make the area known for it.

    It never spilled over into Broxtowe constituency, though the BNP won a seat in Brinsley, in Ashfield constituency but Broxtowe borough. Ironically that was one reason the party had such trouble later, as the councillor was a bitter opponent of Griffin and had an explosive feud with him, following which the BNP membership list was leaked and BNP heavies visited her house to remove her computer.

    I'm not one of those who generally accuses UKIP of racism (obviously with the exception of some members), but ipeople who used to vote BNP may feel they're the next best thing.

This discussion has been closed.