Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The way opinion is moving in Scotland the value IndyRef bet
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The way opinion is moving in Scotland the value IndyRef bet is now on YES
There has been a clear tightening in the polls and if this continues I can see the YES price moving in with NO moving out. The prices, seen in the chart, are quite generous and my guess is that they will move.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581188/Revealed-How-people-living-just-10-mega-rich-London-constituencies-pay-10-entire-countrys-tax.html
(Agree with Lennon - odd that the map is squished on the lower left, to squash in Walton and Esher. 20 miles becomes 5).
Cautious heads will warn that one swallow does not make a summer. They will note that the poll was largely conducted before the publication of the latest Scottish Government and Expenditure Revenue statistics that showed a weakening of Scotland’s fiscal position, as well as after many a company spoke in their annual reports of the possible risks of independence. The gender gap (at 46% the proportion of women backing independence is almost as high as the 48% figure for men) is unusually small. Nevertheless for the time being at least the poll is bound to provide a boost to the Yes side’s morale.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/03/panelbase-now-also-show-yes-vote-up/
1) Poor people can't afford to live there.
2) Old people who don't need to work in London would get more for their money retiring somewhere else.
2) Slow boundary changes and non-enfranchisement of foreign nationals probably means they have higher populations than most constituencies.
David Cameron was just gifted another opportunity in a live TV press conference to confirm that yes, the Tories have indeed CUT TAXES for people.
Grant Schapps must be kicking himself.
Oh, wait...
The British public see this year's budget as the fairest since 2010 – and nine of its policies are supported by a majority
The penultimate budget of this parliament has won broad approval from the press, and Labour’s biggest criticism focused more on what wasn’t in it than what was – indeed, Ed Balls agreed with much of it.......
The standout policies have cross party appeal. 90% of Labour voters support raising the point at which the 40% tax rate comes into effect; 52% favour increasing the personal tax allowance to £1,500; 66% agree with increasing the amount of money people can save tax-free in an ISA; and 54% support making it easier for pensioners to take part of their pension as a lump sum.
The only policy opposed by the majority of Labour voters (51%) is the cap on the welfare bill, which Labour have actually agreed to support..
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/03/21/budget-2014-fairest-since-2010/
Debt £800bn in 2010
Will be ~£1.4bn next year.
And no amount of your inept spin or yellow boxes looking at your preferred measures of net debt and debt as a proportion of GDP will alter that I'm afraid. Don't call me a liar again.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/david-cameron-rebuked-for-telling-porkies-about-the-national-debt/
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/03/how-thatcher-sold-council-houses-and-created-a-new-generation-of-property-owners.html ...
But it is entirely consistent with the increase registered in the last two to three months by the polls as a whole. On average, the 14 polls conducted since Christmas have put the Yes vote on 42% (once Don’t Knows are excluded), up three points on the equivalent statistic for all of the polls conducted in the second half of last year. There can now be little doubt that the No side’s lead has narrowed – and equally that last month’s currency intervention has so far failed to reverse that trend.
@Avery
Debt £800bn in 2010
Will be ~£1.4tn next year.
And no amount of your inept spin or yellow boxes looking at your preferred measures of net debt and debt as a proportion of GDP will alter that I'm afraid. Don't call me a liar again.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/david-cameron-rebuked-for-telling-porkies-about-the-national-debt/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKcNSrB_kqg
Avery, explain how he reduced it whilst borrowing more than additional £100B per annum. Did we pay back more than that each year. Methinks you are using weasely Tory words and being very very economical with the truth.
Under George, Public Sector Net Debt excluding financial interventions (the effects of the bank bailouts) rose from £984 billion (65% GDP) in 2010 to £1254.7 billion (75.7%) at end 2013. This is £280.7 billion of additional borrowing.
This extra borrowing has been offset by £316.4 billion of debt reduction due (mainly) to changes in the net debts of the intervened banks.
This month's PSF Bulletin reconciles PSND to PSND ex in Table PSF11B. Between end 2012 Q2 and end 2013 Q4 (the range of dates in the table). the net debts of the intervened banks fell from £965.4 billion to £904.2 billion. This is broadly the trend across the whole term.
Effectively total net debt is falling due to the net debt of the public sector banks falling in greater volume than other government debt is rising. Not an ideal way to reduce debt and not sustainable over the long term, but a debt reduction nonetheless.
You are the one with "blind hatred" of those who ask questions of the very dodgy prospectus the SNP are offering.......
Esher and Walton are not in Greater London.
http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/NewsnetScotlandPollv3.pdf
Interestingly this shows yes ahead (net) among 16-34 and 35-55 (+8) but not 55+ (-27)
We must now face the prospect that post the 2015 general election the quite spectacularly awful Gerald Kaufman will become Father of the House of Commons. Yes he of the expenses scandal £9k tv and £1800 rug (No Mike, not that sort of rug) and sundry other public largesse.
Bugger ....
In general events take time to seep into voters awareness. IIRC there is normally a lag of around a week.
But the major change in polls is not caused by events, but message and general impression. Both take time to change and also have to be grounded in reality.
There is now a clear idealogical break between the coalition parties and labour. Personal freedom v nanny state. The pensions and annuity discussion is illustrative of this.
Expect this message to be reinforced in months to come.
The polls will change as the message gets through. But it takes time.
http://theweek.com/article/index/253058/why-david-camerons-crusade-against-porn-is-the-nanny-state-at-its-worst
The chart published by the Spectator represents and is clearly labelled "Public Sector Net Debt excluding financial interventions" which is a subset of Public Sector Net Debt.
The interchange of letters between Rachel Reeves and Sir Andrew Dilnot, referred to in the Spectator blog, solely concerns the difference between flow messages of borrowing and stock measures of debt, and, the benefit of clarity and transparency which derives from politicians using the different terms correctly.
We are not muddling borrowing and debt in our posts. We are talking only of the stock measure, debt.
I did not claim you were deliberately lying, just that you were wrong.
As you give some the impression of being an intelligent man, I may need to change my position if you persist in making inaccurate claims.
At present you just benefit from a quickly diminishing extent of doubt.
When you are explaining, you're losing.
National debt
2010 ~£0.8tn
2015 ~£1.4tn
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/david-cameron-rebuked-for-telling-porkies-about-the-national-debt/
The SNP propaganda machine must immediately take action in the estates of Westerhailes, Castlemilk & Easterhouse to counter the effects of this potential game changer.
Read my previous reply to you and my post to malcolmg. It is all clearly stated.
This means that LAB would need a majority of 20+ to be certain of continuing in power post March 2016.
As to a 2016 general election that could be difficult because of the fixed term parliament act.
ps "Johann Lamont, the embodiment of social justice", says Sarwar.
It might be worth shopping around the bookies to see if you can slip in a "Indy Yes" and "Tory Maj" double
7/2*4/1=21.5/1
They might say its related but some might not
Arguably the long-term damage would be serious for Labour, but the current shadow cabinet isn't particularly Scottish-heavy and the "better divorce lawyers" thing isn't the only possible outcome. Scottish-connected English-resident voters might go Labour if they thought the Tories were going to make things difficult for them in future. Or UK-loving voters might be narked off at Cameron for breaking the UK and go UKIP. It's quite hard to guess how it would pan out, and I don't think it's really been polled.
I take your point about the current government just about doubling the national debt in five years. Given the trajectory of the borrowing when they took office I find it difficult to work out what any government could have done that would have lead to a significantly better result. However, as you see fit to criticise, I expect you do know what they should have done. So, please, why not tell us.
Even if you were born in Devon.
Lab 1/2
LD 6/4
SNP 50/1
Con 100/1
UKIP 100/1
Note: this seat is held by the SNP at the Scottish Parliament (SNP Maj over Lab = 1,802).
Although I think that LAB ought to be FAV for this seat, I think that the LD price is way too short (they came in a very poor 4th place in 2011, with 7.7% of the vote) and the SNP price is way too long.
The CON price of 100/1 is interesting, because the Tories actually held this seat as recently as 1987. Is there any other seat in GB where the Tories are priced this long in a seat they held as recently as the 1980s?
‘Together we can’ sets out who we are and what we believe.
This is the positive constitutional, economic and social alternative.
Real values, real people, real choices and real ideas to change the lives of people in Scotland. It will guide us, not just to the 18th of September but guide us back into government in 2015 and 2016.
It is now clear. There is now only one unifying force in British politics. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont that is the Labour Party.
The real choice in this referendum is not people seeking liberation from London, but those who want liberation from inequality no matter if they live in Perth or Penrith.
The separation people are calling for is not from the rest of the UK but separation from poverty.
And the real divide is not people fighting with their neighbours, but people fighting to get by and get on.
Together we can build a better Scotland and a better United Kingdom
Together we can grow and care. Together we can achieve, prosper and succeed. Together we will.
I wouldn't want disturb Archimedes at his circles.
Eg Lab wins 335 seats, others win 315; majority = 20.
Lab loses 40 seats, others lose 1 - Lab now has 295 seats versus 314 (ignoring the other Scotch seats).
Whereas
Labour has 345 seats, others have 306: Lab majority 40 seats.
Lab loses 40 Scotch seats, others lose 1 - Lab now has 305 seats, others have 305 seats.
There would be similar stories to tell for all kinds of other connections - family, study, etc etc etc.
I suppose 'Look, with Labour even someone like Johann Lamont can rise to the dizzy heights of leader of the Labour Party in Scotland' has a certain ring to it.
But, rather more relevantly and immediately, your point also affects the LDs too.
Turgid stuff I agree.
Oddest blog of the year. Newsnight's new lefty economist says he was once a fan of Oswald Mosley:
http://duncanseconomicblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/my-teenage-mistakes/
He compounded the error by saying that if he was going to racially abuse this child, which of course he would never dream of, "Jew" would hardly seem the most likely insult, to which he was asked "Why not? . Why cant Black Nigerians be Jews??" etc etc
And so began the hatred of politically correct idiots...
I hope that you hold sway and influence within your party, because if you do the Lib Dems are travelling blind into this referendum campaign. Long may that continue.
By the way, Panelbase are based in Hexham, Northumberland, England, and are a respected member of the British Polling Council. Here are the people that work there:
http://www.panelbase.com/about/
So, it is unclear why you slander them as being biased towards one political party. You might as well accuse ICM of being puppets of the Lib Dems. You'd have as much basis for doing so, ie. none.
Furthermore, the Yes campaign is much, much more than simply the SNP. Unless you want the No campaign to be solely identified with the Tories?
Ozzy clearly disagreed with you, in 2010. He set himself a deficit reduction target.
He is set to miss that target by ~£200bn.
I would have invested in more capital spending projects to create jobs and get the economy moving earlier. I would only have borrowed more for capital investment. It may well have paid off.
Make no mistake, if any politician can be said to "lose" the Union, it is the leader of the Labour Party...
Scottish Labour voters have the smallest "no" lead (+29, vs Con +78, LibD, +43) of the Unionist parties, and the greatest number of don't knows - twice the others at 17....and the lowest certainty to vote.....
In the same way as Labour needs the Tories to win, the Scotch nat nutters know at bottom what side their bread's buttered and they're not going to vote to split up with all that English money. They don't want to win, they just want a chance to tell us how sincerely and bitterly they hate us. And then keep taking the money.
It's the fact that almost everyone wants No to win that means it will.
Unfortunately.
Also the potential for Brexit will become a bigger concern for non-ideological people, because:
1) Once you see a referendum breaking up one union it'll look more credible that it could break up another.
2) Once you have Scotland in the EU (eventually) and rUK out, border controls and migration restrictions and other inconveniences start to look quite plausible.
You'd expect Parris to actually do his own homework.
MarkSenior Posts: 1,525
2:30PM edited 3:26PM
In fact, it is often medium run revenue positive to invest.
The trick is choosing the right projects.
PS. I think in reality the contrast between the parties on this issue will be a little bit blurred, as they'll want handle it with a boringly consensual cross-party arrangement.
Quite possibly right, but I don't recall anyone from the left complaining that Osborne was too generous on benefits in 2010-2012.
a) Unionists have special editing privileges denied separatists, or
b) The Moderator did it......
No doubt normal service will be resumed shortly......
We did as we felt it impugned the integrity of the pollster.
All posters should be aware it is fine to criticise the methodology of pollsters but not their integrity as Mike has said in the past.