I feel poor old Richard Nabavi's pain, I really do!
He's absolutely right, though: if you put an EU In Out referendum at the top of your political priorities, the only way you are going to stand a chance of getting it any time soon is to vote Tory in 2015. You have a clear choice on that. There is no way on God's earth that Cameron will back out of that commitment if he wins next year.
The problem, I think, is that for many UKIP voters it's not really about Europe at all.
For most UKIP voters, it's more about psychatric pain rather than about anything tangible. The Conservatives are trying to woo the ones who are safe to be let off gurneys without facemasks with a retail offer. That might win a few of them back. But there are plenty more that need an emotional offer, and Labour or the Lib Dems have as much chance as the Conservatives of formulating that emotional offer.
The problem , I guess is UKIPs rise in support isn't necessarily fuelled in the main by an "out of the EU or bust mentality"
Richard knows this but pretends not to realise it to suit his argument
No, I realise that entirely. That's why my first comment in this thread was to disagree with Rupert Murdoch's tweet about Cameron doing a deal with UKIP. There is no deal to be done.
So, how should the Tories tempt back at least some of the defectors to UKIP?
By distinctive policies attractive to those defectors as well as to Conservatives and to floaters in the middle. We had an extremely good example of exactly such an approach in the Budget.
The problem , I guess is UKIPs rise in support isn't necessarily fuelled in the main by an "out of the EU or bust mentality"
Richard knows this but pretends not to realise it to suit his argument
No, I realise that entirely. That's why my first comment in this thread was to disagree with Rupert Murdoch's tweet about Cameron doing a deal with UKIP. There is no deal to be done.
So, how should the Tories tempt back at least some of the defectors to UKIP?
By distinctive policies attractive to those defectors as well as to Conservatives and to floaters in the middle. We had an extremely good example of exactly such an approach in the Budget.
"By distinctive policies attractive to those defectors as well as to Conservatives and to floaters in the middle."
Lol, Richard some of us have been saying that to you for ages. But it's even more targetted it has to be to voters in the marginals if it's going to be effective so Midlands and places north. However Cameron and his advisors struggle to reach the parts others reach and simply make it worse with childish insults to the people they need on board .
The problem , I guess is UKIPs rise in support isn't necessarily fuelled in the main by an "out of the EU or bust mentality"
Richard knows this but pretends not to realise it to suit his argument
No, I realise that entirely. That's why my first comment in this thread was to disagree with Rupert Murdoch's tweet about Cameron doing a deal with UKIP. There is no deal to be done.
So, how should the Tories tempt back at least some of the defectors to UKIP?
By distinctive policies attractive to those defectors as well as to Conservatives and to floaters in the middle. We had an extremely good example of exactly such an approach in the Budget.
The only thing I can think of is to replace Cameron
Its probably best for people of a right wing disposition in the long term, for Miliband to win a working majority GE2015 by a whisker, be useless, lose a vote of no confidence and a BOO Tory leader work with UKIP to win the next election, which could be sooner than 2020
What really worries opposition MPs is not that their leader didn’t refer to the Chancellor’s big pension reforms in the Commons but that he and Ed Balls seemed slow to grasp that they were significant at all. “A dead rabbit” produced from Osborne’s hat, joked the shadow chancellor after the Budget debate. The rabbit was gamboling across the front pages the following morning.
That was exactly the exchange I had with Nick Palmer at the time: I was amazed at Labour's complacency on this. They were so out of touch that they didn't understand it was a significant development.
Does anyone really care what Rupert Murdoch thinks these days? I have just done a YouGov which was asking about how often I read his newspapers and what I think of them among others.
I find the doom merchants predictions rather amusing when it seems the only thing keeping a Labour poll lead at present is the weighting being used by pollsters. The Tories are on something like 34-36% which is within the margin of error compared to their 2010 vote of just shy of 37%. If and when the Tories push above 37% it is simply a matter of by how much the Tories will be the largest party next year after the GE.
Incidentally, if we get a YouGov crossover on Monday night, does that count as a 1st Q or 2nd Q poll for those with the relevant crossover bets? Although published on 31st March it is for the 1st April paper.
Despite Sir Brian Leveson's best attempts to bring the matter to an end this afternoon, today's application by Manfo Asiedu for leave to appeal against his conviction for conspiracy to cause an explosion on 21 July 2005 was adjourned by the Court of Appeal to a date to be determined. The Court also ordered the Crown to provide greater disclosure to the applicant in four areas. The Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is considering whether to refer the convictions of those who have already appealed back to the Court of Appeal, had sent along a representative to the court, who took careful notes. Will the convictions arising from 21/7 become associated with those arising from the Birmingham, Guildford and Woolwich trials, as the applicants' lawyers say they should do? Leveson is troubled by the prospect...
Does anyone really care what Rupert Murdoch thinks these days? I have just done a YouGov which was asking about how often I read his newspapers and what I think of them among others.
I find the doom merchants predictions rather amusing when it seems the only thing keeping a Labour poll lead at present is the weighting being used by pollsters. The Tories are on something like 34-36% which is within the margin of error compared to their 2010 vote of just shy of 37%. If and when the Tories push above 37% it is simply a matter of by how much the Tories will be the largest party next year after the GE.
Incidentally, if we get a YouGov crossover on Monday night, does that count as a 1st Q or 2nd Q poll for those with the relevant crossover bets? Although published on 31st March it is for the 1st April paper.
I don't know I'm on both Q1 and Q2 though. But I think it has to be soon or it simply won't happen. I can see the budget bounce receding, add to that the Farage effect from him winning the debate and well may not be a cross over poll before 30th June.
Meanwhile the Telegraph reports economic problems in Brazil:
" Brazil has come down to earth with a thud after the glory days of the commodity boom, when the economy seemed near take-off as the top supplier of iron ore and grains for China. It became a textbook case of the “Dutch disease”, suffering from an overvalued currency that “hollowed out” core industry. Industrial output is barely higher today than in 2008, a picture more like Italy than an Asian tiger. "
Well at least they have industrial output higher than in 2008 whether or not that is barely higher and like Italy or not.
By comparison industrial output in the UK is over 12% lower than it was in 2008.
Not to mention productivity being lower as well.
Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising.
Ever wondered where the extra £700bn+ of government debt has been spent ?
Meanwhile the Telegraph reports economic problems in Brazil:
" Brazil has come down to earth with a thud after the glory days of the commodity boom, when the economy seemed near take-off as the top supplier of iron ore and grains for China. It became a textbook case of the “Dutch disease”, suffering from an overvalued currency that “hollowed out” core industry. Industrial output is barely higher today than in 2008, a picture more like Italy than an Asian tiger. "
Well at least they have industrial output higher than in 2008 whether or not that is barely higher and like Italy or not.
By comparison industrial output in the UK is over 12% lower than it was in 2008.
Not to mention productivity being lower as well.
Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising.
Ever wondered where the extra £700bn+ of government debt has been spent ?
"Brazil has come down to earth with a thud"
"Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising."
The two are partly connected as crooks from the tottering BRICs money-launder 100s of billions of dollars in loot through the London financial and property markets.
Meanwhile the Telegraph reports economic problems in Brazil:
" Brazil has come down to earth with a thud after the glory days of the commodity boom, when the economy seemed near take-off as the top supplier of iron ore and grains for China. It became a textbook case of the “Dutch disease”, suffering from an overvalued currency that “hollowed out” core industry. Industrial output is barely higher today than in 2008, a picture more like Italy than an Asian tiger. "
Well at least they have industrial output higher than in 2008 whether or not that is barely higher and like Italy or not.
By comparison industrial output in the UK is over 12% lower than it was in 2008.
Not to mention productivity being lower as well.
Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising.
Ever wondered where the extra £700bn+ of government debt has been spent ?
"Brazil has come down to earth with a thud"
"Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising."
The two are partly connected as crooks from the tottering BRICs money-launder 100s of billions of dollars in loot through the London financial and property markets.
Do you have a shred of evidence for that or is it just another of your fantastical conspiracy theories?
"the only thing keeping a Labour poll lead at present is the weighting being used by pollsters." Err....last nights Yougov:
Weighted:
Lab:609 Tory:579
Unweighted:
Lab:648 Tory:540
Explain to me again how the weighted data favours Labour.
They make it up as they go along.
If you want a laugh:
New Ladbrokes market - Lancaster and Fleetwood (Con maj = 333)
Lab 1/7 Con 4/1 Grn 100/1 UKIP 100/1 LD 100/1
Whats amusing about that market - Maybe Con shd be 11/2 but nothing majorly wrong with it.
Jack W regularly trots out CON MOST SEATS in his arses, much to general murmurs of approval from assembled PB Tories. How on earth does that square with LAB being odds-on FAV in a growing number of CON-held seats? And we're not just talking about narrow odds-on, we are talking about eg 1/7.
Meanwhile the Telegraph reports economic problems in Brazil:
" Brazil has come down to earth with a thud after the glory days of the commodity boom, when the economy seemed near take-off as the top supplier of iron ore and grains for China. It became a textbook case of the “Dutch disease”, suffering from an overvalued currency that “hollowed out” core industry. Industrial output is barely higher today than in 2008, a picture more like Italy than an Asian tiger. "
Well at least they have industrial output higher than in 2008 whether or not that is barely higher and like Italy or not.
By comparison industrial output in the UK is over 12% lower than it was in 2008.
Not to mention productivity being lower as well.
Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising.
Ever wondered where the extra £700bn+ of government debt has been spent ?
"Brazil has come down to earth with a thud"
"Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising."
The two are partly connected as crooks from the tottering BRICs money-launder 100s of billions of dollars in loot through the London financial and property markets.
Evidence?
You make these sweeping claims, implicitly questioning the probity of many who post on this site, and never once provide a shred of evidence.
Eng still need to win the next 2 games to qualify.
Yup. Shame the Saffers limped home earlier.
Back in our hands now - a loss today and we needed NRR snookers and help from other teams.
Is there a way whereby we win both yet still don't qualify? Sky seemed to suggest so but as usual they weren't clear...
No Saffers max 4 if we beat em, NL max 2.
SL and NZ max going into last game = 4 each.
Eng would be on 6 - NRR decides who wins the group - SL in pole position after that trouncing of the NL. Saffers may go out even if they beat Eng which is their last game.
"the only thing keeping a Labour poll lead at present is the weighting being used by pollsters." Err....last nights Yougov:
Weighted:
Lab:609 Tory:579
Unweighted:
Lab:648 Tory:540
Explain to me again how the weighted data favours Labour.
They make it up as they go along.
If you want a laugh:
New Ladbrokes market - Lancaster and Fleetwood (Con maj = 333)
Lab 1/7 Con 4/1 Grn 100/1 UKIP 100/1 LD 100/1
Whats amusing about that market - Maybe Con shd be 11/2 but nothing majorly wrong with it.
Jack W regularly trots out CON MOST SEATS in his arses, much to general murmurs of approval from assembled PB Tories. How on earth does that square with LAB being odds-on FAV in a growing number of CON-held seats? And we're not just talking about narrow odds-on, we are talking about eg 1/7.
Bookies are following the polls and UNS/electoral calculus.
If you slavishly apply them and assume no poll movement then the maths spew out big Lab majorities.
"the only thing keeping a Labour poll lead at present is the weighting being used by pollsters." Err....last nights Yougov:
Weighted:
Lab:609 Tory:579
Unweighted:
Lab:648 Tory:540
Explain to me again how the weighted data favours Labour.
They make it up as they go along.
If you want a laugh:
New Ladbrokes market - Lancaster and Fleetwood (Con maj = 333)
Lab 1/7 Con 4/1 Grn 100/1 UKIP 100/1 LD 100/1
Whats amusing about that market - Maybe Con shd be 11/2 but nothing majorly wrong with it.
Jack W regularly trots out CON MOST SEATS in his arses, much to general murmurs of approval from assembled PB Tories. How on earth does that square with LAB being odds-on FAV in a growing number of CON-held seats? And we're not just talking about narrow odds-on, we are talking about eg 1/7.
There's £1,500 of money available on Betfair for Labour most seats at 1.78 (4/5). And 4/1 available on the Conservatives winning seats like Lancaster and Fleetwood. I make no further comment.
Bookies are following the polls and UNS/electoral calculus.
If you slavishly apply them and assume no poll movement then the maths spew out big Lab majorities.
Yes, but Stuart has a point: they are not consistent with the odds which the same bookies quote on Con/Lab Most Seats or Con/Lab Maj
But that is evidence of one or other of the (sets of) markets offering value rather than of one view of the likely outcome of the next general election being more valid than another.
17% of current UKIP supporters voted LibDem in 2010? Really? Does this not strike anyone else as a little odd?
One bloc is socio-economic swing voters concentrated around the C1/C2 join.
For people in that bloc who see Con as only representing the economic interests of the City of London and Lab only the economic interests of the nomenklatura then - of the parties big enough to make a difference - that only left LD.
But that is evidence of one or other of the (sets of) markets offering value rather than of one view of the likely outcome of the next general election being more valid than another.
"the only thing keeping a Labour poll lead at present is the weighting being used by pollsters." Err....last nights Yougov:
Weighted:
Lab:609 Tory:579
Unweighted:
Lab:648 Tory:540
Explain to me again how the weighted data favours Labour.
They make it up as they go along.
If you want a laugh:
New Ladbrokes market - Lancaster and Fleetwood (Con maj = 333)
Lab 1/7 Con 4/1 Grn 100/1 UKIP 100/1 LD 100/1
Whats amusing about that market - Maybe Con shd be 11/2 but nothing majorly wrong with it.
Jack W regularly trots out CON MOST SEATS in his arses, much to general murmurs of approval from assembled PB Tories. How on earth does that square with LAB being odds-on FAV in a growing number of CON-held seats? And we're not just talking about narrow odds-on, we are talking about eg 1/7.
Bookies are following the polls and UNS/electoral calculus.
No, the bookies are looking after their own bank balances. As usual.
Meanwhile the Telegraph reports economic problems in Brazil:
" Brazil has come down to earth with a thud after the glory days of the commodity boom, when the economy seemed near take-off as the top supplier of iron ore and grains for China. It became a textbook case of the “Dutch disease”, suffering from an overvalued currency that “hollowed out” core industry. Industrial output is barely higher today than in 2008, a picture more like Italy than an Asian tiger. "
Well at least they have industrial output higher than in 2008 whether or not that is barely higher and like Italy or not.
By comparison industrial output in the UK is over 12% lower than it was in 2008.
Not to mention productivity being lower as well.
Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising.
Ever wondered where the extra £700bn+ of government debt has been spent ?
"Brazil has come down to earth with a thud"
"Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising."
The two are partly connected as crooks from the tottering BRICs money-launder 100s of billions of dollars in loot through the London financial and property markets.
Evidence?
You make these sweeping claims, implicitly questioning the probity of many who post on this site, and never once provide a shred of evidence.
Time to put up or shut up
I'm sure Mr Jones can speak for himself but you're being ridiculous if you're claiming that, for example, there isn't significant amounts of money from Russia invested in central London.
Take a look at who owns Chelsea football club if you want the most famous example.
"the only thing keeping a Labour poll lead at present is the weighting being used by pollsters." Err....last nights Yougov:
Weighted:
Lab:609 Tory:579
Unweighted:
Lab:648 Tory:540
Explain to me again how the weighted data favours Labour.
They make it up as they go along.
If you want a laugh:
New Ladbrokes market - Lancaster and Fleetwood (Con maj = 333)
Lab 1/7 Con 4/1 Grn 100/1 UKIP 100/1 LD 100/1
Whats amusing about that market - Maybe Con shd be 11/2 but nothing majorly wrong with it.
Jack W regularly trots out CON MOST SEATS in his arses, much to general murmurs of approval from assembled PB Tories. How on earth does that square with LAB being odds-on FAV in a growing number of CON-held seats? And we're not just talking about narrow odds-on, we are talking about eg 1/7.
They are presumably looking at Baxter's predictions as you do when it suits you . Currently Lancaster and Fleetwood he has as a Labour majority of 14.5% and 76.5% chance of winning .
OGH FPT: "My main reservation about the UKIP leader’s performance last night was his comment on Ukraine and the EU suggesting that he prefers Mr. Putin to Brussels. This is something that he might later regret. The Tories, in particular, will likely use that against him"
The elected government of Ukraine was overthrown by violent rioters, including, it appears far right elements, after the elected Ukraine government turned down an association agreement with the EU. Funnily enough the EU does not seem to object to this and is happy to sign an association agreement with the new unelected government. The EU does have a big problem with a referendum of the people of Crimea about their future. Presumably because they are not in a position to make them repeat the referendum until the EU gets the result it wants on this occasion.
People in the Crimea have their pensions guaranteed by Russia. People in the rest of Ukraine are apparently facing a halving of pensions with the EU sponsored IMF "bail out" as well as a massive hike in energy prices as the IMF/EU abolish subsidies. Opening up of Ukraines internal markets to the EU will decimate local compaines and benefit EU based exporters to Ukraine
I think Farage called this one right. Putin is no saint but it seems to me that the EU are the imperialists here.
"the only thing keeping a Labour poll lead at present is the weighting being used by pollsters." Err....last nights Yougov:
Weighted:
Lab:609 Tory:579
Unweighted:
Lab:648 Tory:540
Explain to me again how the weighted data favours Labour.
They make it up as they go along.
If you want a laugh:
New Ladbrokes market - Lancaster and Fleetwood (Con maj = 333)
Lab 1/7 Con 4/1 Grn 100/1 UKIP 100/1 LD 100/1
Whats amusing about that market - Maybe Con shd be 11/2 but nothing majorly wrong with it.
Jack W regularly trots out CON MOST SEATS in his arses, much to general murmurs of approval from assembled PB Tories. How on earth does that square with LAB being odds-on FAV in a growing number of CON-held seats? And we're not just talking about narrow odds-on, we are talking about eg 1/7.
They are presumably looking at Baxter's predictions as you do when it suits you . Currently Lancaster and Fleetwood he has as a Labour majority of 14.5% and 76.5% chance of winning .
I always look at Baxter's predictions, whether "it suits me" or not. Unlike you, I do not look selectively at the available evidence/information. That is my key strength and your key weakness. Your personality flaws are subsidiary problems.
New Ladbrokes market - Chesterfield (Lab maj = 549)
Lab 1/16 LD 8/1 UKIP 100/1 Con 100/1
Some of these Labour odds are difficult to comprehend. Are only Labour supporters going to the bookies ? That should not come as a surprise. The more determined would make the trek.
Meanwhile the Telegraph reports economic problems in Brazil:
" Brazil has come down to earth with a thud after the glory days of the commodity boom, when the economy seemed near take-off as the top supplier of iron ore and grains for China. It became a textbook case of the “Dutch disease”, suffering from an overvalued currency that “hollowed out” core industry. Industrial output is barely higher today than in 2008, a picture more like Italy than an Asian tiger. "
Well at least they have industrial output higher than in 2008 whether or not that is barely higher and like Italy or not.
By comparison industrial output in the UK is over 12% lower than it was in 2008.
Not to mention productivity being lower as well.
Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising.
Ever wondered where the extra £700bn+ of government debt has been spent ?
"Brazil has come down to earth with a thud"
"Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising."
The two are partly connected as crooks from the tottering BRICs money-launder 100s of billions of dollars in loot through the London financial and property markets.
Evidence?
You make these sweeping claims, implicitly questioning the probity of many who post on this site, and never once provide a shred of evidence.
"On the Andrew Marr programme on 23rd March 2012, the writer Max Hastings reported a conversation he had had with a ' senior central banker' recently in which he had been told that today, London is considered to be the money laundering capital of the world."
New Ladbrokes market - Chesterfield (Lab maj = 549)
Lab 1/16 LD 8/1 UKIP 100/1 Con 100/1
Some of these Labour odds are difficult to comprehend. Are only Labour supporters going to the bookies ? That should not come as a surprise. The more determined would make the trek.
I too am amazed at how short Shadsy is pricing Labour in nearly all seats.
Your thought regarding the propensity of Labour-supporters to vote also crossed my mind. But would that not be balanced out by the fact that the fewer Tory gamblers tend to have larger pools of capital to play with?
"My main reservation about the UKIP leader’s performance last night was his comment on Ukraine and the EU suggesting that he prefers Mr. Putin to Brussels. This is something that he might later regret. The Tories, in particular, will likely use that against him"
Only a few weeks ago Cameron was asking Putin to frighten the Scots about the perils of independence ?
Eng still need to win the next 2 games to qualify.
Yup. Shame the Saffers limped home earlier.
Back in our hands now - a loss today and we needed NRR snookers and help from other teams.
Is there a way whereby we win both yet still don't qualify? Sky seemed to suggest so but as usual they weren't clear...
No Saffers max 4 if we beat em, NL max 2.
SL and NZ max going into last game = 4 each.
Eng would be on 6 - NRR decides who wins the group - SL in pole position after that trouncing of the NL. Saffers may go out even if they beat Eng which is their last game.
We're not seriously thinking UKIP will get 11% are we? 6% at best! maybe one seat (Gt Yarmouth) Tory kippers will stare into the abyss and peg their noses for Cameron. labour are barely ahead with nurse clinging to come. Tories 97 vastly outpolled Tories 01, labour 10 will vastly outpoll Labour 15 NOM, Tories close enough to do it with DUP help with the SNP playing supply and confidence in return for negotiation on their terms after a yes. Simples
New Ladbrokes market - Chesterfield (Lab maj = 549)
Lab 1/16 LD 8/1 UKIP 100/1 Con 100/1
Some of these Labour odds are difficult to comprehend. Are only Labour supporters going to the bookies ? That should not come as a surprise. The more determined would make the trek.
I too am amazed at how short Shadsy is pricing Labour in nearly all seats.
Your thought regarding the propensity of Labour-supporters to vote also crossed my mind. But would that not be balanced out by the fact that the fewer Tory gamblers tend to have larger pools of capital to play with?
The prices are so short in some Tory marginals it suggests either Shadsy has his maths wrong or he knows something we don't. Labour have taken a big hit in polling recently, no doubt about it, so all seems odd.
New Ladbrokes market - Chesterfield (Lab maj = 549)
Lab 1/16 LD 8/1 UKIP 100/1 Con 100/1
Some of these Labour odds are difficult to comprehend. Are only Labour supporters going to the bookies ? That should not come as a surprise. The more determined would make the trek.
I too am amazed at how short Shadsy is pricing Labour in nearly all seats.
Your thought regarding the propensity of Labour-supporters to vote also crossed my mind. But would that not be balanced out by the fact that the fewer Tory gamblers tend to have larger pools of capital to play with?
The initial odds put up by Shadsy would presumably be based on some analysis and some just gut reaction. However, pretty soon the punters would move in if any odds look way out.
I don't know how many punters actually bet on constituencies at this time of the electoral cycle.
Have other bookies put up some prices ? Some would probably not match closely in the beginning.
Meanwhile the Telegraph reports economic problems in Brazil:
" Brazil has come down to earth with a thud after the glory days of the commodity boom, when the economy seemed near take-off as the top supplier of iron ore and grains for China. It became a textbook case of the “Dutch disease”, suffering from an overvalued currency that “hollowed out” core industry. Industrial output is barely higher today than in 2008, a picture more like Italy than an Asian tiger. "
Well at least they have industrial output higher than in 2008 whether or not that is barely higher and like Italy or not.
By comparison industrial output in the UK is over 12% lower than it was in 2008.
Not to mention productivity being lower as well.
Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising.
Ever wondered where the extra £700bn+ of government debt has been spent ?
"Brazil has come down to earth with a thud"
"Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising."
The two are partly connected as crooks from the tottering BRICs money-launder 100s of billions of dollars in loot through the London financial and property markets.
Evidence?
You make these sweeping claims, implicitly questioning the probity of many who post on this site, and never once provide a shred of evidence.
Time to put up or shut up
I'm sure Mr Jones can speak for himself but you're being ridiculous if you're claiming that, for example, there isn't significant amounts of money from Russia invested in central London.
Take a look at who owns Chelsea football club if you want the most famous example.
Not much of an investment since Chelsea lost £49.4 million last year.
On topic. From the leader, The idea that the purples are taking as many votes from LAB as CON is a nonsense. UKIP hurts the Tories far more than any other party as can be seen from the chart
It would be fascinating to know how the proportion of ex-2010 Con votes broke down between (a) long-term Con supporters and (b) people who backed the Tories in 2010 but didn't in 2005 i.e. to what extent is UKIP benefitting from what were Con/Lab swing voters but have left that axis this time? We know there's been virtually no Con/Lab net swing, and that Labour polled extremely poorly in 2010, so either quite a few must have gone UKIP or the Tories have held on to a lot of that swing vote but have lost some former 'core'.
The answer to that question will determine the validity of Mike's analysis. There is a big difference between "UKIP hurts the Tories far more than any other party" (i.e. it's a general and consistent rule) and "UKIP has hurt the Tories far more than any other party" (i.e. in this specific instance but not necessarily always).
I'll have a nibble of the Waveney odds for A Tory win. The East does not red heart Labour.
If you believe in swingback then seats like this look very tasty. LAB probably still FAV even with swingback, but 1/5 (!!) FAV? Jeepers, that is short.
I hope some of the ice between you two is thawing. Your differences on Ukraine ought not lead to personal enmity.
I haven't felt there's been personal enmity between myself and Richard. We clearly have utter contempt for each other's position on this issue, but it's very much on the issue. I believe the worse thing that was said was that we had each lost a degree of respect for the other as a political thinker, but again, that's a matter of our political views, and is to be expected when you think someone is not just wrong, but shockingly wrong on a matter of such importance. It's nothing about the content of each other's character, which is what counts in life.
There's only three people on this board that I have actually disliked as unpleasant people, and two of them (Stewart Jackson and tim) have left.
That said, it's good of you to try to make pb a nicer place. It's great to have another non-troll left winger on here.
New Ladbrokes market - Chesterfield (Lab maj = 549)
Lab 1/16 LD 8/1 UKIP 100/1 Con 100/1
Some of these Labour odds are difficult to comprehend. Are only Labour supporters going to the bookies ? That should not come as a surprise. The more determined would make the trek.
I too am amazed at how short Shadsy is pricing Labour in nearly all seats.
Your thought regarding the propensity of Labour-supporters to vote also crossed my mind. But would that not be balanced out by the fact that the fewer Tory gamblers tend to have larger pools of capital to play with?
The initial odds put up by Shadsy would presumably be based on some analysis and some just gut reaction. However, pretty soon the punters would move in if any odds look way out.
I don't know how many punters actually bet on constituencies at this time of the electoral cycle.
Have other bookies put up some prices ? Some would probably not match closely in the beginning.
Yes. Stan James briefly had a few up, but I think they are all down again. But Paddy Power have quite a lot up. Eg. I posted this this morning on the previous thread:
Ladbrokes have now priced up North Warwickshire (Con Maj = 54), adding to the Paddy Power pricing we have had for ages.
I hope some of the ice between you two is thawing. Your differences on Ukraine ought not lead to personal enmity.
I haven't felt there's been personal enmity between myself and Richard. We clearly have utter contempt for each other's position on this issue, but it's very much on the issue. I believe the worse thing that was said was that we had each lost a degree of respect for the other as a political thinker, but again, that's a matter of our political views, and is to be expected when you think someone is not just wrong, but shockingly wrong on a matter of such importance. It's nothing about the content of each other's character, which is what counts in life.
There's only three people on this board that I have actually disliked as unpleasant people, and two of them (Stewart Jackson and tim) have left.
That said, it's good of you to try to make pb a nicer place. It's great to have another non-troll left winger on here.
Meanwhile the Telegraph reports economic problems in Brazil:
" Brazil has come down to earth with a thud after the glory days of the commodity boom, when the economy seemed near take-off as the top supplier of iron ore and grains for China. It became a textbook case of the “Dutch disease”, suffering from an overvalued currency that “hollowed out” core industry. Industrial output is barely higher today than in 2008, a picture more like Italy than an Asian tiger. "
Well at least they have industrial output higher than in 2008 whether or not that is barely higher and like Italy or not.
By comparison industrial output in the UK is over 12% lower than it was in 2008.
Not to mention productivity being lower as well.
Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising.
Ever wondered where the extra £700bn+ of government debt has been spent ?
"Brazil has come down to earth with a thud"
"Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising."
The two are partly connected as crooks from the tottering BRICs money-launder 100s of billions of dollars in loot through the London financial and property markets.
Do you have a shred of evidence for that or is it just another of your fantastical conspiracy theories?
Most of the current "growth" is fuelled by either a) importing more people or b) a tidal wave of money coming into the UK mostly via the London property market from oligarchs in the BRICs stashing their winnings before the massive distortion in global supply and demand known as "globalization" starts to collapse
or did you think the top-end housing boom is all down to help to buy?
The elected government of Ukraine was overthrown by violent rioters, including, it appears far right elements, after the elected Ukraine government turned down an association agreement with the EU.
This is pure lies. One at a time:
(1) The government was not removed from power. Merely the President was. That is one position in a government.
(2) He was not removed by rioters, but by another part of government, the duly elected parliament, who voted unanimously to remove him. And that includes MPs from his own party, the Party of the Regions.
(3) The vast majority of the rioters were not violent. Yanukovych's removal from power happened after violence from the government, which involved armed police shooting live rounds on unarmed protesters.
(4) "Including far right elements" is the most weasel worded phrase. We may as well say that the opposition to the current Coalition government includes far right element. It is trying to smear by association.
Meanwhile the Telegraph reports economic problems in Brazil:
" Brazil has come down to earth with a thud after the glory days of the commodity boom, when the economy seemed near take-off as the top supplier of iron ore and grains for China. It became a textbook case of the “Dutch disease”, suffering from an overvalued currency that “hollowed out” core industry. Industrial output is barely higher today than in 2008, a picture more like Italy than an Asian tiger. "
Well at least they have industrial output higher than in 2008 whether or not that is barely higher and like Italy or not.
By comparison industrial output in the UK is over 12% lower than it was in 2008.
Not to mention productivity being lower as well.
Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising.
Ever wondered where the extra £700bn+ of government debt has been spent ?
"Brazil has come down to earth with a thud"
"Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising."
The two are partly connected as crooks from the tottering BRICs money-launder 100s of billions of dollars in loot through the London financial and property markets.
Evidence?
You make these sweeping claims, implicitly questioning the probity of many who post on this site, and never once provide a shred of evidence.
Time to put up or shut up
I'm sure Mr Jones can speak for himself but you're being ridiculous if you're claiming that, for example, there isn't significant amounts of money from Russia invested in central London.
Take a look at who owns Chelsea football club if you want the most famous example.
Not much of an investment since Chelsea lost £49.4 million last year.
That's because it's to launder money, not to profit.
New Ladbrokes market - Chesterfield (Lab maj = 549)
Lab 1/16 LD 8/1 UKIP 100/1 Con 100/1
Some of these Labour odds are difficult to comprehend. Are only Labour supporters going to the bookies ? That should not come as a surprise. The more determined would make the trek.
I too am amazed at how short Shadsy is pricing Labour in nearly all seats.
Your thought regarding the propensity of Labour-supporters to vote also crossed my mind. But would that not be balanced out by the fact that the fewer Tory gamblers tend to have larger pools of capital to play with?
The initial odds put up by Shadsy would presumably be based on some analysis and some just gut reaction. However, pretty soon the punters would move in if any odds look way out.
I don't know how many punters actually bet on constituencies at this time of the electoral cycle.
Have other bookies put up some prices ? Some would probably not match closely in the beginning.
PP offered some Con-Lab constituencies but were too generous on the Conservative odds in Elmet, Dewsbury, Battersea and Weaver Vale.
The Conservative odds have since been shortened as a result of the money which went on them.
Opening up of Ukraines internal markets to the EU will decimate local compaines and benefit EU based exporters to Ukraine
I think Farage called this one right. Putin is no saint but it seems to me that the EU are the imperialists here.
The former Soviet countries that joined the EU are:
Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, and most recently Bulgaria and Romania.
These countries 'looked West' and - looking only at countries who have been in the EU more than three years - GDP per head averages just north of $15,000.
The countries that 'looked East', and remained within the Russian 'sphere of influence' are Belorussia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and various 'stans.
These countries GDP's per head are less than a third of the Estonias and Latvias. Ukraine's GDP per head, was less than $4,000.
If you were sitting in Kiev and saw people in Riga who - 15 years ago - were about as rich as you were now living lives you could not dream of, which way would you look?
Just as a matter of interest: if you were sitting in Kiev, would you rather be part of a kleptocracy - like so many other countries in the Russian 'sphere of influence' - or would you rather be part of (broadly defined) Europe?
Meanwhile the Telegraph reports economic problems in Brazil:
" Brazil has come down to earth with a thud after the glory days of the commodity boom, when the economy seemed near take-off as the top supplier of iron ore and grains for China. It became a textbook case of the “Dutch disease”, suffering from an overvalued currency that “hollowed out” core industry. Industrial output is barely higher today than in 2008, a picture more like Italy than an Asian tiger. "
Well at least they have industrial output higher than in 2008 whether or not that is barely higher and like Italy or not.
By comparison industrial output in the UK is over 12% lower than it was in 2008.
Not to mention productivity being lower as well.
Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising.
Ever wondered where the extra £700bn+ of government debt has been spent ?
"Brazil has come down to earth with a thud"
"Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising."
The two are partly connected as crooks from the tottering BRICs money-launder 100s of billions of dollars in loot through the London financial and property markets.
Evidence?
You make these sweeping claims, implicitly questioning the probity of many who post on this site, and never once provide a shred of evidence.
Time to put up or shut up
I'm sure Mr Jones can speak for himself but you're being ridiculous if you're claiming that, for example, there isn't significant amounts of money from Russia invested in central London.
Take a look at who owns Chelsea football club if you want the most famous example.
Not much of an investment since Chelsea lost £49.4 million last year.
That's because it's to launder money, not to profit.
Murdoch doing his best to push the UKIP cause. All those people that said in 2010 it was a simple matter of the economy picking up for 2015..... It is. Add in the fact that a lot of Labours extra 8% is going to be in the South from former tactical voters who feel bummed by the coalition and won't go back to Clegg and co. Then add in clinging to nurse, then add in the job needing completing. Then add in Tory kippers recoiling at the thought of Eds in charge. Then add in the fact that governments, even unpopular ones, will get their vote out as their quiet support will not want Labour back. And add in Labour not having this advantage (see Hague 2001) I mean, I'll cover my own fancies in betting terms, but come off it, 2% ahead and Rupert is calling it a year out? Do me a favour. FILL YO.BOOTS
Opening up of Ukraines internal markets to the EU will decimate local compaines and benefit EU based exporters to Ukraine
I think Farage called this one right. Putin is no saint but it seems to me that the EU are the imperialists here.
The former Soviet countries that joined the EU are:
Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, and most recently Bulgaria and Romania.
These countries 'looked West' and - looking only at countries who have been in the EU more than three years - GDP per head averages just north of $15,000.
The countries that 'looked East', and remained within the Russian 'sphere of influence' are Belorussia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and various 'stans.
These countries GDP's per head are less than a third of the Estonias and Latvias. Ukraine's GDP per head, was less than $4,000.
If you were sitting in Kiev and saw people in Riga who - 15 years ago - were about as rich as you were now living lives you could not dream of, which way would you look?
Just as a matter of interest: if you were sitting in Kiev, would you rather be part of a kleptocracy - like so many other countries in the Russian 'sphere of influence' - or would you rather be part of (broadly defined) Europe?
But isn't Russian GDP per head significantly more than $4,000 - or that's what SeanT saying recently.
And as to the benefits and drawbacks of a kleptocracy the people making the decisions tend to be the beneficiaries of kleptocracies.
And underlying everything is the old West-East split in the Russian/Slavic/Eastern/Eurasian psyche.
Now if you or I were living in Ukraine or a 'stan' we would chose the West. But its not us living there is it.
We're not seriously thinking UKIP will get 11% are we? 6% at best! maybe one seat (Gt Yarmouth) Tory kippers will stare into the abyss and peg their noses for Cameron. labour are barely ahead with nurse clinging to come. Tories 97 vastly outpolled Tories 01, labour 10 will vastly outpoll Labour 15 NOM, Tories close enough to do it with DUP help with the SNP playing supply and confidence in return for negotiation on their terms after a yes. Simples
A Yes vote followed by "the SNP playing supply and confidence" ?? One would almost begin feeling sorry for Dave
Lab victory in 2015 has in my view become slightly less likely this week. UKIP delivered more, but became a more known quantity, LDs reinforced their credibility (if not their popularity), and Labour looked a little clueless when trying to find anything to really latch on to financially.
But the time in which change might happen is diminishing, and Labour do have a pretty consistent lead. So, Labour easy favs, but enduring the perils of the path to victory.
Before that though the Euro elections, and more importantly how the various parties respond to a nailed on strong showing by UKIP will potentially be the swing that really matters. Labour have the most to lose here, and Ed will be tested.
(This isn't my first post today, but included in that I should have made a note that today is Tony Benn's funeral. I stood along the wayside when Maggie was buried, and even though they were chalk and cheese Mr Benn is the only other politician who I hold in such high esteem. For a moment only he should be regarded as Lord Benn, and then perhaps we can revert to his preferred style. I don't know why I feel it necessary to write good words about a man with who's conclusions I almost always disagreed, but I do. Well done Tony Benn)
New Ladbrokes market - Chesterfield (Lab maj = 549)
Lab 1/16 LD 8/1 UKIP 100/1 Con 100/1
Some of these Labour odds are difficult to comprehend. Are only Labour supporters going to the bookies ? That should not come as a surprise. The more determined would make the trek.
I understand that E Mids LibDems are focusing on Chesterfield and Leciester S as the places where they'll at least make an effort. Both do seem awfully long shots though.
We're not seriously thinking UKIP will get 11% are we? 6% at best! maybe one seat (Gt Yarmouth) Tory kippers will stare into the abyss and peg their noses for Cameron. labour are barely ahead with nurse clinging to come. Tories 97 vastly outpolled Tories 01, labour 10 will vastly outpoll Labour 15 NOM, Tories close enough to do it with DUP help with the SNP playing supply and confidence in return for negotiation on their terms after a yes. Simples
A Yes vote followed by "the SNP playing supply and confidence" ?? One would almost begin feeling sorry for Dave
He'll survive, and once the deal is struck, the Scots MPs will be sat out of Westminster business. Game on.
But I get the gist of your question - the LDs in my view have been building a base of considered responsibility - precisely the base needed to really make them a viable vote (in the long term) as a party of government.
If you had to make a guess at what percentage of governments over the next 100 years the LDs might be a part of I suspect your guess would have risen throughout this parliament. I think that's what they're up to, or at least what Clegg is up to. Sneaky!
New Ladbrokes market - Chesterfield (Lab maj = 549)
Lab 1/16 LD 8/1 UKIP 100/1 Con 100/1
Some of these Labour odds are difficult to comprehend. Are only Labour supporters going to the bookies ? That should not come as a surprise. The more determined would make the trek.
I understand that E Mids LibDems are focusing on Chesterfield and Leciester S as the places where they'll at least make an effort. Both do seem awfully long shots though.
We're not seriously thinking UKIP will get 11% are we? 6% at best! maybe one seat (Gt Yarmouth) Tory kippers will stare into the abyss and peg their noses for Cameron. labour are barely ahead with nurse clinging to come. Tories 97 vastly outpolled Tories 01, labour 10 will vastly outpoll Labour 15 NOM, Tories close enough to do it with DUP help with the SNP playing supply and confidence in return for negotiation on their terms after a yes. Simples
A Yes vote followed by "the SNP playing supply and confidence" ?? One would almost begin feeling sorry for Dave
He'll survive, and once the deal is struck, the Scots MPs will be sat out of Westminster business. Game on.
Game on indeed. I'm getting quite excited just thinking about it.
We're not seriously thinking UKIP will get 11% are we? 6% at best! maybe one seat (Gt Yarmouth) Tory kippers will stare into the abyss and peg their noses for Cameron. labour are barely ahead with nurse clinging to come. Tories 97 vastly outpolled Tories 01, labour 10 will vastly outpoll Labour 15 NOM, Tories close enough to do it with DUP help with the SNP playing supply and confidence in return for negotiation on their terms after a yes. Simples
A Yes vote followed by "the SNP playing supply and confidence" ?? One would almost begin feeling sorry for Dave
He'll survive, and once the deal is struck, the Scots MPs will be sat out of Westminster business. Game on.
Game on indeed. I'm getting quite excited just thinking about it.
Don't wet yourself about something that will not happen , Yes is toast as every poll shows .
Are there any polls that ask whether peoples views have changed after the Farage/Clegg debate? Farage 'winning' isn't of any significance at all if he's just judged to have done so amongst those that watched/listened.
It's a shame that more people didn't watch overall.
Meanwhile the Telegraph reports economic problems in Brazil:
" Brazil has come down to earth with a thud after the glory days of the commodity boom, when the economy seemed near take-off as the top supplier of iron ore and grains for China. It became a textbook case of the “Dutch disease”, suffering from an overvalued currency that “hollowed out” core industry. Industrial output is barely higher today than in 2008, a picture more like Italy than an Asian tiger. "
Well at least they have industrial output higher than in 2008 whether or not that is barely higher and like Italy or not.
By comparison industrial output in the UK is over 12% lower than it was in 2008.
Not to mention productivity being lower as well.
Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising.
Ever wondered where the extra £700bn+ of government debt has been spent ?
"Brazil has come down to earth with a thud"
"Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising."
The two are partly connected as crooks from the tottering BRICs money-launder 100s of billions of dollars in loot through the London financial and property markets.
Evidence?
You make these sweeping claims, implicitly questioning the probity of many who post on this site, and never once provide a shred of evidence.
Time to put up or shut up
I'm sure Mr Jones can speak for himself but you're being ridiculous if you're claiming that, for example, there isn't significant amounts of money from Russia invested in central London.
Take a look at who owns Chelsea football club if you want the most famous example.
Not much of an investment since Chelsea lost £49.4 million last year.
That's because it's to launder money, not to profit.
We're not seriously thinking UKIP will get 11% are we? 6% at best! maybe one seat (Gt Yarmouth) Tory kippers will stare into the abyss and peg their noses for Cameron. labour are barely ahead with nurse clinging to come. Tories 97 vastly outpolled Tories 01, labour 10 will vastly outpoll Labour 15 NOM, Tories close enough to do it with DUP help with the SNP playing supply and confidence in return for negotiation on their terms after a yes. Simples
A Yes vote followed by "the SNP playing supply and confidence" ?? One would almost begin feeling sorry for Dave
He'll survive, and once the deal is struck, the Scots MPs will be sat out of Westminster business. Game on.
Game on indeed. I'm getting quite excited just thinking about it.
Don't wet yourself about something that will not happen , Yes is toast as every poll shows .
Wetting oneself is best left to the Lib Dem expersts.
Poll of Polls - 'No' lead:
Sep 2013 - 20.2% Sep 2013 - 20.0% Sep 2013 - 18.4% Oct 2013 - 17.9% Oct 2013 - 17.5% Oct 2013 - 17.4% Nov 2013 - 17.5% Dec 2013 - 17.1% Dec 2013 - 16.3% Dec 2013 - 16.2% Dec 2013 - 15.8% Jan 2014 - 14.2% Jan 2014 - 14.8% Feb 2014 - 14.8% Feb 2014 - 14.7% Feb 2014 - 15.1% Feb 2014 - 13.6% Feb 2014 - 14.0% Mar 2014 - 14.0% Mar 2014 - 14.3% Mar 2014 - 14.3% Mar 2014 - 13.6% Mar 2014 - 12.9% Mar 2014 - 13.0% Mar 2014 - 12.5%
Yes, Russian GDP per head is about $13,000. Being Russian has been - if not actually good - then certainly not been bad. Being in a state that looked West has - on average - been slightly better. Being in a Russian satellite state has been an absolute disaster, whether we're talking Moldova, Georgia, Beloruse, or Ukraine.
Being on the international radar is a huge boost to anyone. The Soviet Union had places within it that were unknown and almost unknowable. Russia, all by its little self, has the same issue. Crimea exploding onto the world stage is just one of (no doubt) many examples of the people making themselves known.
Although the Russian action was wrong it seems clear that they engendered the right result for Crimea. The Russians should apologise a lot, and make it entirely clear that if there is ever any momentum for a move back to the Ukraine amongst the Crimean population that they'd be very very helpful in facilitating any referendum process.
Hat's off incidentally to the Ukrainian people. They've weathered the daftness and can hopefully be left alone to shape their future as they see fit.
Comments
So, how should the Tories tempt back at least some of the defectors to UKIP?
By distinctive policies attractive to those defectors as well as to Conservatives and to floaters in the middle. We had an extremely good example of exactly such an approach in the Budget.
Lol, Richard some of us have been saying that to you for ages. But it's even more targetted it has to be to voters in the marginals if it's going to be effective so Midlands and places north. However Cameron and his advisors struggle to reach the parts others reach and simply make it worse with childish insults to the people they need on board .
Hale's here. Putting Lanka to the sword :DDDD
Its probably best for people of a right wing disposition in the long term, for Miliband to win a working majority GE2015 by a whisker, be useless, lose a vote of no confidence and a BOO Tory leader work with UKIP to win the next election, which could be sooner than 2020
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/03/sound-labour-silence-miliband-can-t-rely-tories-keep-hurting-cameron-him
I was particularly pleased by this bit:
What really worries opposition MPs is not that their leader didn’t refer to the Chancellor’s big pension reforms in the Commons but that he and Ed Balls seemed slow to grasp that they were significant at all. “A dead rabbit” produced from Osborne’s hat, joked the shadow chancellor after the Budget debate. The rabbit was gamboling across the front pages the following morning.
That was exactly the exchange I had with Nick Palmer at the time: I was amazed at Labour's complacency on this. They were so out of touch that they didn't understand it was a significant development.
I find the doom merchants predictions rather amusing when it seems the only thing keeping a Labour poll lead at present is the weighting being used by pollsters. The Tories are on something like 34-36% which is within the margin of error compared to their 2010 vote of just shy of 37%. If and when the Tories push above 37% it is simply a matter of by how much the Tories will be the largest party next year after the GE.
Incidentally, if we get a YouGov crossover on Monday night, does that count as a 1st Q or 2nd Q poll for those with the relevant crossover bets? Although published on 31st March it is for the 1st April paper.
Of these I've found 642 personal Twitter pages which is about 80%:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDR1NHZVS0ozZkpaYVlPV2d4WHR5ZXc&usp=drive_web#gid=0
Labour: 339 candidates, 299 personal Twitter pages
Con: 202, 168
LD: 133, 107
UKIP: 82, 36
Green: 22, 17
Plaid Cymru: 24, 15
Best T20 game ever???
Weighted:
Lab:609
Tory:579
Unweighted:
Lab:648
Tory:540
Explain to me again how the weighted data favours Labour.
5/2 was fair odds though.
" Brazil has come down to earth with a thud after the glory days of the commodity boom, when the economy seemed near take-off as the top supplier of iron ore and grains for China. It became a textbook case of the “Dutch disease”, suffering from an overvalued currency that “hollowed out” core industry. Industrial output is barely higher today than in 2008, a picture more like Italy than an Asian tiger. "
Well at least they have industrial output higher than in 2008 whether or not that is barely higher and like Italy or not.
By comparison industrial output in the UK is over 12% lower than it was in 2008.
Not to mention productivity being lower as well.
Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising.
Ever wondered where the extra £700bn+ of government debt has been spent ?
I seem to recall a few months ago posts on here referring to Con odds of approx Evens in a seat where the Con majority was 7,000.
Now we have odds of 2-1 in seats where the majority is a few hundred.
The actual question is where did all the swing voters go?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/9170071/has-ed-milibands-luck-finally-run-out/
If you want a laugh:
New Ladbrokes market - Lancaster and Fleetwood (Con maj = 333)
Lab 1/7
Con 4/1
Grn 100/1
UKIP 100/1
LD 100/1
"Yet retail sales are higher and house prices rising."
The two are partly connected as crooks from the tottering BRICs money-launder 100s of billions of dollars in loot through the London financial and property markets.
You make these sweeping claims, implicitly questioning the probity of many who post on this site, and never once provide a shred of evidence.
Time to put up or shut up
SL and NZ max going into last game = 4 each.
Eng would be on 6 - NRR decides who wins the group - SL in pole position after that trouncing of the NL. Saffers may go out even if they beat Eng which is their last game.
Sky - never wrong for long.
If you slavishly apply them and assume no poll movement then the maths spew out big Lab majorities.
For people in that bloc who see Con as only representing the economic interests of the City of London and Lab only the economic interests of the nomenklatura then - of the parties big enough to make a difference - that only left LD.
Since then Ukip got bigger.
Some things never change.
Take a look at who owns Chelsea football club if you want the most famous example.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 40s
"Vote UKIP get Miliband". My analysis of this on the number one political blog, @ConHome tomorrow.
The elected government of Ukraine was overthrown by violent rioters, including, it appears far right elements, after the elected Ukraine government turned down an association agreement with the EU. Funnily enough the EU does not seem to object to this and is happy to sign an association agreement with the new unelected government. The EU does have a big problem with a referendum of the people of Crimea about their future. Presumably because they are not in a position to make them repeat the referendum until the EU gets the result it wants on this occasion.
People in the Crimea have their pensions guaranteed by Russia. People in the rest of Ukraine are apparently facing a halving of pensions with the EU sponsored IMF "bail out" as well as a massive hike in energy prices as the IMF/EU abolish subsidies. Opening up of Ukraines internal markets to the EU will decimate local compaines and benefit EU based exporters to Ukraine
I think Farage called this one right. Putin is no saint but it seems to me that the EU are the imperialists here.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-clarke-villains-choose-safe-london-to-launder-their-dirty-money-9155974.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/uk-standardbank-fine-idUKBREA0M0LF20140123
http://rowans-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/london-money-laundering-capital-of.html
"On the Andrew Marr programme on 23rd March 2012, the writer Max Hastings reported a conversation he had had with a ' senior central banker' recently in which he had been told that today, London is considered to be the money laundering capital of the world."
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/31/banks-told-improve-protection-against-money-laundering
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/uk-standardbank-fine-idUKBREA0M0LF20140123
etc
Your thought regarding the propensity of Labour-supporters to vote also crossed my mind. But would that not be balanced out by the fact that the fewer Tory gamblers tend to have larger pools of capital to play with?
Only a few weeks ago Cameron was asking Putin to frighten the Scots about the perils of independence ?
6% at best! maybe one seat (Gt Yarmouth)
Tory kippers will stare into the abyss and peg their noses for Cameron.
labour are barely ahead with nurse clinging to come. Tories 97 vastly outpolled Tories 01, labour 10 will vastly outpoll Labour 15
NOM, Tories close enough to do it with DUP help with the SNP playing supply and confidence in return for negotiation on their terms after a yes.
Simples
I don't know how many punters actually bet on constituencies at this time of the electoral cycle.
Have other bookies put up some prices ? Some would probably not match closely in the beginning.
It would be fascinating to know how the proportion of ex-2010 Con votes broke down between (a) long-term Con supporters and (b) people who backed the Tories in 2010 but didn't in 2005 i.e. to what extent is UKIP benefitting from what were Con/Lab swing voters but have left that axis this time? We know there's been virtually no Con/Lab net swing, and that Labour polled extremely poorly in 2010, so either quite a few must have gone UKIP or the Tories have held on to a lot of that swing vote but have lost some former 'core'.
The answer to that question will determine the validity of Mike's analysis. There is a big difference between "UKIP hurts the Tories far more than any other party" (i.e. it's a general and consistent rule) and "UKIP has hurt the Tories far more than any other party" (i.e. in this specific instance but not necessarily always).
New Ladbrokes market - Waveney (Con maj = 769)
Lab 1/5
Con 3/1
UKIP 50/1
LD 100/1
There's only three people on this board that I have actually disliked as unpleasant people, and two of them (Stewart Jackson and tim) have left.
That said, it's good of you to try to make pb a nicer place. It's great to have another non-troll left winger on here.
Ladbrokes have now priced up North Warwickshire (Con Maj = 54), adding to the Paddy Power pricing we have had for ages.
New best prices - North Warwickshire
Lab 1/3 (Lad)
Con 7/2 (PP)
UKIP 50/1 (Lad)
LD 100/1 (both)
BNP 200/1 (PP)
a) importing more people
or
b) a tidal wave of money coming into the UK mostly via the London property market from oligarchs in the BRICs stashing their winnings before the massive distortion in global supply and demand known as "globalization" starts to collapse
or did you think the top-end housing boom is all down to help to buy?
(1) The government was not removed from power. Merely the President was. That is one position in a government.
(2) He was not removed by rioters, but by another part of government, the duly elected parliament, who voted unanimously to remove him. And that includes MPs from his own party, the Party of the Regions.
(3) The vast majority of the rioters were not violent. Yanukovych's removal from power happened after violence from the government, which involved armed police shooting live rounds on unarmed protesters.
(4) "Including far right elements" is the most weasel worded phrase. We may as well say that the opposition to the current Coalition government includes far right element. It is trying to smear by association.
The Conservative odds have since been shortened as a result of the money which went on them.
Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, and most recently Bulgaria and Romania.
These countries 'looked West' and - looking only at countries who have been in the EU more than three years - GDP per head averages just north of $15,000.
The countries that 'looked East', and remained within the Russian 'sphere of influence' are Belorussia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and various 'stans.
These countries GDP's per head are less than a third of the Estonias and Latvias. Ukraine's GDP per head, was less than $4,000.
If you were sitting in Kiev and saw people in Riga who - 15 years ago - were about as rich as you were now living lives you could not dream of, which way would you look?
Just as a matter of interest: if you were sitting in Kiev, would you rather be part of a kleptocracy - like so many other countries in the Russian 'sphere of influence' - or would you rather be part of (broadly defined) Europe?
All those people that said in 2010 it was a simple matter of the economy picking up for 2015.....
It is.
Add in the fact that a lot of Labours extra 8% is going to be in the South from former tactical voters who feel bummed by the coalition and won't go back to Clegg and co. Then add in clinging to nurse, then add in the job needing completing. Then add in Tory kippers recoiling at the thought of Eds in charge. Then add in the fact that governments, even unpopular ones, will get their vote out as their quiet support will not want Labour back. And add in Labour not having this advantage (see Hague 2001)
I mean, I'll cover my own fancies in betting terms, but come off it, 2% ahead and Rupert is calling it a year out? Do me a favour.
FILL YO.BOOTS
And as to the benefits and drawbacks of a kleptocracy the people making the decisions tend to be the beneficiaries of kleptocracies.
And underlying everything is the old West-East split in the Russian/Slavic/Eastern/Eurasian psyche.
Now if you or I were living in Ukraine or a 'stan' we would chose the West. But its not us living there is it.
And with that a good evening to you all.
But the time in which change might happen is diminishing, and Labour do have a pretty consistent lead. So, Labour easy favs, but enduring the perils of the path to victory.
Before that though the Euro elections, and more importantly how the various parties respond to a nailed on strong showing by UKIP will potentially be the swing that really matters. Labour have the most to lose here, and Ed will be tested.
(This isn't my first post today, but included in that I should have made a note that today is Tony Benn's funeral. I stood along the wayside when Maggie was buried, and even though they were chalk and cheese Mr Benn is the only other politician who I hold in such high esteem. For a moment only he should be regarded as Lord Benn, and then perhaps we can revert to his preferred style. I don't know why I feel it necessary to write good words about a man with who's conclusions I almost always disagreed, but I do. Well done Tony Benn)
PB is totally independent and will remain so until Lord Ashcroft offers me £250k
Game on.
But I get the gist of your question - the LDs in my view have been building a base of considered responsibility - precisely the base needed to really make them a viable vote (in the long term) as a party of government.
If you had to make a guess at what percentage of governments over the next 100 years the LDs might be a part of I suspect your guess would have risen throughout this parliament. I think that's what they're up to, or at least what Clegg is up to. Sneaky!
Leicester S has not been priced up yet.
Being Russian has been - if not actually good - then certainly not been bad.
Being in a state that looked West has - on average - been slightly better.
Being in a Russian satellite state has been an absolute disaster, whether we're talking Moldova, Georgia, Beloruse, or Ukraine.
It's a shame that more people didn't watch overall.
Moderators might want to remove that comment.
Poll of Polls - 'No' lead:
Sep 2013 - 20.2%
Sep 2013 - 20.0%
Sep 2013 - 18.4%
Oct 2013 - 17.9%
Oct 2013 - 17.5%
Oct 2013 - 17.4%
Nov 2013 - 17.5%
Dec 2013 - 17.1%
Dec 2013 - 16.3%
Dec 2013 - 16.2%
Dec 2013 - 15.8%
Jan 2014 - 14.2%
Jan 2014 - 14.8%
Feb 2014 - 14.8%
Feb 2014 - 14.7%
Feb 2014 - 15.1%
Feb 2014 - 13.6%
Feb 2014 - 14.0%
Mar 2014 - 14.0%
Mar 2014 - 14.3%
Mar 2014 - 14.3%
Mar 2014 - 13.6%
Mar 2014 - 12.9%
Mar 2014 - 13.0%
Mar 2014 - 12.5%
Although the Russian action was wrong it seems clear that they engendered the right result for Crimea. The Russians should apologise a lot, and make it entirely clear that if there is ever any momentum for a move back to the Ukraine amongst the Crimean population that they'd be very very helpful in facilitating any referendum process.
Hat's off incidentally to the Ukrainian people. They've weathered the daftness and can hopefully be left alone to shape their future as they see fit.