Miss Cyclefree, that's something I'd forgotten. You're right that, in that area at least, the intellectually self-confident Labour Party was against choice.
Whether that makes my suggestion wanting more choice is a meaningless slogan depends on whether you think Labour's policy is valid, or bonkers.
There's an old political maxim, that unless you can imagine someone campaigning on the opposite of a slogan, that slogan is meaningless.
Incidentally, I'm also expecting Ed Balls to write in his memoirs how he secretly worked with George O to pursuade the world's investors that the UK went through austerity to reduce it's deficit, when in fact they agreed to do little of the sort and thus together they avoided meltdown in the UK as a result as painlessly as could have been hoped.
Miss Cyclefree, that's something I'd forgotten. You're right that, in that area at least, the intellectually self-confident Labour Party was against choice.
Whether that makes my suggestion wanting more choice is a meaningless slogan depends on whether you think Labour's policy is valid, or bonkers.
There's an old political maxim, that unless you can imagine someone campaigning on the opposite of a slogan, that slogan is meaningless.
Not necessarily. Wasn't it Douglas Jay who said that the man in Whitehall really did know best? Labour in those days really did believe that people should not have choice, which I imagine is one reason why the Tory campaigns in the 1950s about setting people free resonated. To a similar extent there was the same divide in the late 1970s eg in relation to the sale of council houses with Roy Hattersley ultimately admitting that Labour were wrong in not allowing council tenants a choice about - gasp! - what colour to paint their front doors.
Livingstone reminding people of what a loathsome toad he is with his stereotyping of people and why he was so unfit to be Mayor of London. It certainly never occurs to him that his embrace, intellectual as well as physical, of anti-Semites might be one reason why Jews - and others - would be disinclined to vote for him.
To be fair to Livingstone (not something you'll often hear me say) his comments in that article were reasonable enough (although I'd add that people of Irish Catholic origin are probably only slightly more likely to be Labour these days, than the population at large). Upward mobility among the Jewish population did cause many to shift over to the Conservatives (as with Irish Catholics).
But Livingstone's strident championing of the Palestinian cause, when he led the GLC, and willingness to cosy up to anti-semites, as Mayor of London, certainly helped cause London's Jews to vote in droves for the Conservatives.
I see Rowling has won (and given to charity) "Substantial" damages from the Mail. There's an establihed code for what "substantial means" - is it £50K?
I see Rowling has won (and given to charity) "Substantial" damages from the Mail. There's an establihed code for what "substantial means" - is it £50K?
The word will have been agreed between the two as part of the settlement.
Indeed. Plenty of nice insurance fodder for those of us for whom the prospect of a Tory win makes us shudder. Meanwhile, I assume Moniker will a piling on after his "Labour to come third in the Euros" forecast last night*
*never bother to ask Moniker to back up his predictions with money - he runs a mile every single time. Frit.
Moniker doesn't come on here to make "predictions", discuss odds or make bets. The account has one very simple, clear purpose. Any sane moderation policy would have blocked the account long ago.
However, the actions of the account-holder are thoroughly counterproductive to Unionist aims. So in that cynical vein, the fact that they are not blocked is a boon.
If the Tories cannot hold on to seats like Thurrock then they haven't got a hope in hell at the UK GE next year. 4/1 is either an outstandlingly good price, or else the Tories under Cameron are heading for meltdown.
If the bookies have their relative pricing of seats right, the Conservatives could have an overall majority and lose Thurrock.
Indeed. However, that argument would look more convincing if it were not for the fact that Thurrock is far from unusual. A whole raft of CON-held marginals currently have very long CON prices.
Either the bookies are idiots, or else the Tories under Cameron are shafted. It is a very brave man who thinks that he knows more about political odds than Shadsy.
You didn't understand my post correctly.
I went into this in a lot more detail a couple of weeks ago, here:
In fact, the Stan James and Ladbrokes prices are so vastly different in Burton that it is free cash (if you can get enough on):
Next UK GE - Burton - best prices
Con 4/6 Stan James Lab 4/1 Lad UKIP 100/1 LD 100/1
Thanks. 4-6 is the value there. Now 8-15. Backed Labour too, and UKIP @ 100 to cover.
Lib Dems I wouldn't back at 10,000-1.</p>
My pleasure!
(All the Lib Dem 100/1 prices are plain daft. Most of them should be 1000/1.)
I suspect bookmakers' risk management systems don't like potential big risks - however unlikely they are.
Yes. I can understand that. But Ladbrokes seem to have a general policy of pricing LD at max 100/1, even when other bookies give much better prices. Perhaps Shadsy knows something we don't?
Indeed. Plenty of nice insurance fodder for those of us for whom the prospect of a Tory win makes us shudder. Meanwhile, I assume Moniker will a piling on after his "Labour to come third in the Euros" forecast last night*
*never bother to ask Moniker to back up his predictions with money - he runs a mile every single time. Frit.
Moniker doesn't come on here to make "predictions", discuss odds or make bets. The account has one very simple, clear purpose. Any sane moderation policy would have blocked the account long ago.
However, the actions of the account-holder are thoroughly counterproductive to Unionist aims. So in that cynical vein, the fact that they are not blocked is a boon.
If the Tories cannot hold on to seats like Thurrock then they haven't got a hope in hell at the UK GE next year. 4/1 is either an outstandlingly good price, or else the Tories under Cameron are heading for meltdown.
If the bookies have their relative pricing of seats right, the Conservatives could have an overall majority and lose Thurrock.
Indeed. However, that argument would look more convincing if it were not for the fact that Thurrock is far from unusual. A whole raft of CON-held marginals currently have very long CON prices.
Either the bookies are idiots, or else the Tories under Cameron are shafted. It is a very brave man who thinks that he knows more about political odds than Shadsy.
You didn't understand my post correctly.
I went into this in a lot more detail a couple of weeks ago, here:
The odds are a little out of date, but the principle remains.
Oh, I forgot. Us mere mortals fail to understand the profound wisdom contained in Antifrank posts.
And Tories wonder why the rest of us portray them as buffoons...
I was simply correcting your misunderstanding of my point. Picking Thurrock and stating that the Conservatives are doomed if they lose it is quite mistaken, if the bookies are correct.
A more interesting seat to pick for such purposes is Northampton North. If I had to pick just one seat to watch, that would be it.
There is absolutely no point in us making the Lib Dems (or other no-hopers) bigger than 100/1. We still won't take any money on them - unless something really odd happens in a particular seat to give them a chance; in which case we'll be laying them at too big a price.
Livingstone reminding people of what a loathsome toad he is with his stereotyping of people and why he was so unfit to be Mayor of London. It certainly never occurs to him that his embrace, intellectual as well as physical, of anti-Semites might be one reason why Jews - and others - would be disinclined to vote for him.
To be fair to Livingstone (not something you'll often hear me say) his comments in that article were reasonable enough (although I'd add that people of Irish Catholic origin are probably only slightly more likely to be Labour these days, than the population at large). Upward mobility among the Jewish population did cause many to shift over to the Conservatives (as with Irish Catholics).
But Livingstone's strident championing of the Palestinian cause, when he led the GLC, and willingness to cosy up to anti-semites, as Mayor of London, certainly helped cause London's Jews to vote in droves for the Conservatives.
Two points struck me about what he said: (a) if the richer you are the less likely you are to vote Labour then he's effectively conceding that it is in Labour's interests to keep people poor. That charge has been made about Labour by others but never, I think, so openly admitted by a Labour politician. It's a counsel of despair and ludicrous. There are many reasons why self-interest might not be the key driver of one's vote.
(b) He says that he does not see the new Culture Secretary as a "Pakistani" because he's rich and a banker. Leave aside all the assumptions in that statement. Why on earth should he see him as a Pakistani at all? He's British. That's how he should be seen. Only someone who views people through their racial or their parents' racial origin (and there are plenty of words to describe people like that) would see someone in that way. I really loathe the way Labour - indeed, all parties - try and pigeonhole people in this way.
John Bercoiw is like a Football Manager who has lost the dressing room. Once lost its not recoverable. He is also like a little girl who stamps her foot when she doesn't get her way. He is hopeless.
There is absolutely no point in us making the Lib Dems (or other no-hopers) bigger than 100/1. We still won't take any money on them - unless something really odd happens in a particular seat to give them a chance; in which case we'll be laying them at too big a price.
Thanks. But it still does not answer the mystery of why some other bookies price no-hope LD candidates much longer. Even at 1000/1 I assume that almost nobody places any bets.
Reading Dan Hodges latest piece it struck me that 2015 really is a watershed for him.
He will either look like an unemployable prize pillock, or the most masterly political journalist of his generation.
He admitted the same to me, personally, If Ed wins in 2015 his reputation as a pundit will be irretrievably tarnished. You can get away with stupidly ridiculous statements once in a while as a columnist (remember david Aaronovitch saying "I will retire if they do not find WMD"? - yet he's still writing) - however hodges has so nailed himself to this mast he will surely sink with his ship, if it goes down. And to be fair he acknowledges this.
You can decry the opinions, but he doesn't lack courage. And yes, if he is proven right he is set fair for a fine and long career
Is Polly ever right? About anything?
Columnists don't have to be right, they have to stimulate debate and further thought. And be entertaining. And drive traffic to their site.
DHodges does all that; I hope he has a long and productive career.
: Survation/Mirror European Election poll CON 24% LAB 28% LDEM 7% UKIP 31%. Is there any point in voting LIBDEM?
Labour only 4 points clear of third place.
Is it possible to bet on them coming third? Maybe Shadsy knows.
This is last night's Euro poll which came out with the 34/33 GE poll. As I said this morning, the main change is the Tory rise of 6% in a fortnight from 18% to 24%. REmember there are no local elections in Scotland on 22nd May so only determined Scots will bother to go out and vote. I fully expect Labour to be 3rd and OGH may get that 10/1 he staked ages go.
Indeed. Plenty of nice insurance fodder for those of us for whom the prospect of a Tory win makes us shudder. Meanwhile, I assume Moniker will a piling on after his "Labour to come third in the Euros" forecast last night*
*never bother to ask Moniker to back up his predictions with money - he runs a mile every single time. Frit.
Moniker doesn't come on here to make "predictions", discuss odds or make bets. The account has one very simple, clear purpose. Any sane moderation policy would have blocked the account long ago.
However, the actions of the account-holder are thoroughly counterproductive to Unionist aims. So in that cynical vein, the fact that they are not blocked is a boon.
If the Tories cannot hold on to seats like Thurrock then they haven't got a hope in hell at the UK GE next year. 4/1 is either an outstandlingly good price, or else the Tories under Cameron are heading for meltdown.
If the bookies have their relative pricing of seats right, the Conservatives could have an overall majority and lose Thurrock.
Indeed. However, that argument would look more convincing if it were not for the fact that Thurrock is far from unusual. A whole raft of CON-held marginals currently have very long CON prices.
Either the bookies are idiots, or else the Tories under Cameron are shafted. It is a very brave man who thinks that he knows more about political odds than Shadsy.
You didn't understand my post correctly.
I went into this in a lot more detail a couple of weeks ago, here:
The odds are a little out of date, but the principle remains.
Oh, I forgot. Us mere mortals fail to understand the profound wisdom contained in Antifrank posts.
And Tories wonder why the rest of us portray them as buffoons...
I was simply correcting your misunderstanding of my point. Picking Thurrock and stating that the Conservatives are doomed if they lose it is quite mistaken, if the bookies are correct.
A more interesting seat to pick for such purposes is Northampton North. If I had to pick just one seat to watch, that would be it.
Northampton North (Con maj = 1,936) is another seat where Shadsy prices the LDs shorter than other bookies:
Lab 8/11 (PP) Con 5/4 (Lad LD 25/1 (PP) (The Ladbrokes price is 16/1) UKIP 33/1 (Lad)
Can we have a thread on the Labour PPB please? 30% strategy in full flow.
It's evidence of Ed Miliband's intellectual self-confidence and the fact that the party is brimming with positive new ideas. Or perhaps of something rather different.
How outright / unequivocal is Hodges' position though? He can still claim to be right even if Miliband ends up as PM, so long as he does so despite losing the popular vote, or in coalition, or with a minority administration.
IIRC finding hard nuggets of prediction in Glenda's boy's column is like trying to find firm bets in malcolmg's or humility in Stuart Dickson's. You come away with a vague assumption that they must be there, because they just must, right? But in fact you'd be wrong.
What time is it in Perth Mr T? Money spent on oysters and fine wine is rarely wasted whatever the bill.
: Survation/Mirror European Election poll CON 24% LAB 28% LDEM 7% UKIP 31%. Is there any point in voting LIBDEM?
Labour only 4 points clear of third place.
Is it possible to bet on them coming third? Maybe Shadsy knows.
This is last night's Euro poll which came out with the 34/33 GE poll. As I said this morning, the main change is the Tory rise of 6% in a fortnight from 18% to 24%. REmember there are no local elections in Scotland on 22nd May so only determined Scots will bother to go out and vote. I fully expect Labour to be 3rd and OGH may get that 10/1 he staked ages go.
They are a lot longer than 10/1 now Mark.
CON most votes (at Euros) is currently 50/1 at Betfair and 22/1 at Bet365. And every other bookie including Shadsy has them at 20/1.
I also note the nonsensical repetition of £450 extra VAT for the "average" family in there. Given it was a 2.5 percentage point increase, that's a claim that the average family spends £11,250 on full-VAT items a year.
PC could be good value, although Ceridigion has a tendency to buck national trends.
Seats like Ceredigion are strictly for those with good, on-the-ground knowledge. The Lib Dems have a huge majority at the moment, and as an outsider I'd like to see either:
I am puzzled by the 'Vote Forecast by Date' graph. My understanding is that this is a graph of the central forecast based on the polls up to the date shown, so that (for example) we see the forecast for the LibDems declining slightly to the current forecast of 10.1%. That is fair enough, I get that.
But what are the dotted lines? The article doesn't specifically say, but my assumption is that they represent the upper and lower confidence bands (95% perhaps?) of the forecast, i.e that the forecast for the LibDems is currently in the range 8.3% to 11.9% with a central forecast of 10.1%.
However, if that is the case, why on earth are the bands not very much wider as you go back towards the earlier dates? You'd expect the polls in the middle of 2011 to tell you virtually nothing about an election in 2015, so the error bands should surely have been very much wider then than they are now.
I also note the nonsensical repetition of £450 extra VAT for the "average" family in there. Given it was a 2.5 percentage point increase, that's a claim that the average family spends £11,250 on full-VAT items a year.
I agree that it is nonsense, but Labour are only learning from the Tory Tax Bombshell campaign of 1992 - where the Tories also misleadingly used an arithmetic mean.
Congratulations! The CONS deserve to be long, but 60 & 65 is just silly.
What often happens on betfair is that someone who has been market-making by laying the "big two" in a market finds themselves with oodles of green on all the outsiders. The temptation is to cash in that green at 1 or 2% by laying those outsiders, almost regardless of their true chances.
The same can happen with traditional bookies, but generally there's enough nibbling at medium-sized prices (16/1 - 66/1, say) to mean they don't succumb to this temptation.
Newark and Labour Their problem will be the lack of Con-Lab switchers in polling from 2010 and the fact they are not attracting the protest vote. Hard to see them winning from that base without an exceptional campaign. UKIP on the other hand.......
Not intentionally but still - also pity the poor LDs who have been sucking up to Labour for years.
I quite enjoyed the ‘retro’ style, a bit like Harry Enfield’s old ‘public service announcement’ sketches, and just as amusing. - I'm sure however that a Labour party political broadcast and what past for a decade of BBC 'light comedy' is a mere coincidence. ; )
Just backed Labour to top East Midlands in Euros at 100/30. (looking at polling and applying to 2009 result in EM it may be a dead heat of sorts between the big 3)
backed the tories for the SE in the euros (not far behind on current polling and I think the 'an independence from europe' people will confuse a fair few voters. also think the tories vote may hold up here more than elsewhere)
I 've also chucked a fiver at a tricast -- Lab, Con,UKIP at 20/1 .
Also backed UKIP polling to be 25-30% at 9/4 and 20-25% at 7/1
I am puzzled by the 'Vote Forecast by Date' graph. My understanding is that this is a graph of the central forecast based on the polls up to the date shown, so that (for example) we see the forecast for the LibDems declining slightly to the current forecast of 10.1%. That is fair enough, I get that.
But what are the dotted lines? The article doesn't specifically say, but my assumption is that they represent the upper and lower confidence bands (95% perhaps?) of the forecast, i.e that the forecast for the LibDems is currently in the range 8.3% to 11.9% with a central forecast of 10.1%.
However, if that is the case, why on earth are the bands not very much wider as you go back towards the earlier dates? You'd expect the polls in the middle of 2011 to tell you virtually nothing about an election in 2015, so the error bands should surely have been very much wider then than they are now.
Have I misunderstood something?
Perhaps this bit helps?
Firstly, we find that the predictive power of polls evolves differently for different parties: polling of Conservative support becomes steadily more predictive from over a year out, while for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the main improvement in accuracy comes in the last six months.
Consequently, the polls one year in advance don't give you any more confidence for Labour and the Lib Dems than those three years in advance - it's only in the last six months that you would expect to see the confidence intervals narrow.
The problem I have with this interpretation is that, if anything, the uncertainty band on the Conservative prediction appears to have widened slightly, rather than narrowed as I would have expected.
PC could be good value, although Ceridigion has a tendency to buck national trends.
Seats like Ceredigion are strictly for those with good, on-the-ground knowledge. The Lib Dems have a huge majority at the moment, and as an outsider I'd like to see either:
a) a much better price than 2/1
or...
b) a proven PC polling surge
... before risking my cash.
Don't risk your cash. PC is not that popular having made a pig's ear of running the Council - poor amateurs at best - not a clue on economic procurement and pay a Chef Exec ~£120k for a population of 70,000.
Also there are nearly as many independent councillors as PC. Labour should be priced at the same price as the Cons - neither has a chance.
No, I think they have. Even their current confidence intervals look ridiculously tight.
Yes, they do look too tight - in very marked contrast to Steve Fisher's model, where the current forecast for the Conservatives is 36.2 plus or minus 8.2 (at 95% confidence).
As an aside: I think the Steve Fisher model is the most significant piece of work which has been done in advance of the 2015 GE. Not because of the central forecast, but because of the size of those error bars. Effectively, he is showing that the polling currently tells you almost nothing, given the historic experience of how polling moves in the year up to an election.
Firstly, we find that the predictive power of polls evolves differently for different parties: polling of Conservative support becomes steadily more predictive from over a year out, while for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the main improvement in accuracy comes in the last six months.
Consequently, the polls one year in advance don't give you any more confidence for Labour and the Lib Dems than those three years in advance - it's only in the last six months that you would expect to see the confidence intervals narrow.
The problem I have with this interpretation is that, if anything, the uncertainty band on the Conservative prediction appears to have widened slightly, rather than narrowed as I would have expected.
OK, yes, that would make some sense, except that in that case the bands are surely far too narrow.
Perhaps they represent one standard deviation not 95% confidence? That would be a bit more plausible.
As an aside: I think the Steve Fisher model is the most significant piece of work which has been done in advance of the 2015 GE. Not because of the central forecast, but because of the size of those error bars.
Agreed. And yet, despite the vast range of uncertainty he allows for, far greater than most commentators who seem to think that blocs of votes are already settled, a Hung Parliament still comes out at 47%.
33/1 would be more realistic, anybody willing to bet money on Labour in Newark may as well chuck it in the Trent, or give it me.
Mike Smithson, among others, disagrees with you.
Out of interest, do you have local knowledge?
I know the area very well and it gets less inclined towards Labour over time, partly due to boundary changes and just it is an area that seems to become more attractive and prosperous, Newark itself used to be quite tough in parts but much less so now.
How outright / unequivocal is Hodges' position though? He can still claim to be right even if Miliband ends up as PM, so long as he does so despite losing the popular vote, or in coalition, or with a minority administration.
IIRC finding hard nuggets of prediction in Glenda's boy's column is like trying to find firm bets in malcolmg's or humility in Stuart Dickson's. You come away with a vague assumption that they must be there, because they just must, right? But in fact you'd be wrong.
What time is it in Perth Mr T? Money spent on oysters and fine wine is rarely wasted whatever the bill.
LOL, says the runner who framed a bet and then tried to backpedal on his predictions by a huge %. I do not button up the back and know a scoundrel when I see one. Your bait was good but your hook was non existent. You back pedalled a mile.
33/1 would be more realistic, anybody willing to bet money on Labour in Newark may as well chuck it in the Trent, or give it me.
Mike Smithson, among others, disagrees with you.
Out of interest, do you have local knowledge?
I know the area very well and it gets less inclined towards Labour over time, partly due to boundary changes and just it is an area that seems to become more attractive and prosperous, Newark itself used to be quite tough in parts but much less so now.
And even those tough areas that remain are represented at district and town level by independents who split from Labour a decade or more ago and who still bear a grudge. Not very fertile territory for Labour at all.
Disappointing that Flowers hasn't been given a few weeks porridge. The problem with a fine is that it means people with loads of money will know that they can break the law without fearing anything much.
Disappointing that Flowers hasn't been given a few weeks porridge. The problem with a fine is that it means people with loads of money will know that they can break the law without fearing anything much.
Surely most people in highly paid jobs (say Chairman of a bank) avoid possession of class A drugs because their boards of directors are likely to regard it as a resigning offence.
I'm assuming you're not proposing that a shelf stacker at Tesco (who probably would not lose his job) spends a few weeks in chokey if he's caught in possession of cocaine..
Firstly, we find that the predictive power of polls evolves differently for different parties: polling of Conservative support becomes steadily more predictive from over a year out, while for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the main improvement in accuracy comes in the last six months.
Consequently, the polls one year in advance don't give you any more confidence for Labour and the Lib Dems than those three years in advance - it's only in the last six months that you would expect to see the confidence intervals narrow.
The problem I have with this interpretation is that, if anything, the uncertainty band on the Conservative prediction appears to have widened slightly, rather than narrowed as I would have expected.
OK, yes, that would make some sense, except that in that case the bands are surely far too narrow.
Perhaps they represent one standard deviation not 95% confidence? That would be a bit more plausible.Yes, I agree that the confidence intervals are too narrow - as you can tell by considering the vetogasm and it's effect on the predicted Tory share.
I think Steve Fisher probably takes things a bit too far in the other direction. There's not a 5% chance of the Tories polling less than 28% or more than 44.4%.
The last time that any party scored more than 44.4% it was Ted Heath's Tories in 1970. No-one is going to take 40-1 on that happening in 2015. And the last time the Tories received less than 30% of the vote at a general election was in 1832!
I think Steve Fisher probably takes things a bit too far in the other direction. There's not a 5% chance of the Tories polling less than 28% or more than 44.4%.
The last time that any party scored more than 44.4% it was Ted Heath's Tories in 1970. No-one is going to take 40-1 on that happening in 2015. And the last time the Tories received less than 30% of the vote at a general election was in 1832!
That was my initial reaction, but, having thought about it, I'm not so sure he does take it too far (I'm assuming he's done his maths correctly). What he is saying is that, starting from here, and looking ONLY at the polling, in one in 40 elections the final result might be the Tories getting 28% or less, or over 44.4%. One in 40 elections is an event which happens once in a couple of centuries or so, so your 1970 and 1832 examples don't look too unreasonable.
Of course, we should bear in mind the important caveat that the model is not a forecast as such, but a model based purely on opinion polling and ignoring everything else. So, as political punters, we need to treat it as telling us, not what the result might be, but how much weight we should give to current polling in forming our (currently largely subjective) forecasts of the plausible range of outcomes - to which the answer is: something, but not very much.
We might of course, after looking at the politics, the economy, the merits or otherwise of the leaders, and so on, decide that we think the shifts from current polling will be less than his model shows, or that they will be more skewed in one direction or the other. It's not an exact science, and we have to supplement the statistical analysis of flawed and noisy data with political judgement. That's the fun bit!
Reading Dan Hodges latest piece it struck me that 2015 really is a watershed for him.
He will either look like an unemployable prize pillock, or the most masterly political journalist of his generation.
He admitted the same to me, personally, If Ed wins in 2015 his reputation as a pundit will be irretrievably tarnished. You can get away with stupidly ridiculous statements once in a while as a columnist (remember david Aaronovitch saying "I will retire if they do not find WMD"? - yet he's still writing) - however hodges has so nailed himself to this mast he will surely sink with his ship, if it goes down. And to be fair he acknowledges this.
You can decry the opinions, but he doesn't lack courage. And yes, if he is proven right he is set fair for a fine and long career
It maybe, perhaps farfetched to most, that the Purples will have a hand in saving Hodges' skin.
Comments
But Livingstone's strident championing of the Palestinian cause, when he led the GLC, and willingness to cosy up to anti-semites, as Mayor of London, certainly helped cause London's Jews to vote in droves for the Conservatives.
(All the Lib Dem 100/1 prices are plain daft. Most of them should be 1000/1.)
Stone walls do not a prison make
Nor iron bars a cage.
I'll take that for ....some badinage.
However, the actions of the account-holder are thoroughly counterproductive to Unionist aims. So in that cynical vein, the fact that they are not blocked is a boon. Oh, I forgot. Us mere mortals fail to understand the profound wisdom contained in Antifrank posts.
And Tories wonder why the rest of us portray them as buffoons...
Chances are that it is a duck.
A more interesting seat to pick for such purposes is Northampton North. If I had to pick just one seat to watch, that would be it.
LAB drifting at Hills: 3/1
(b) He says that he does not see the new Culture Secretary as a "Pakistani" because he's rich and a banker. Leave aside all the assumptions in that statement. Why on earth should he see him as a Pakistani at all? He's British. That's how he should be seen. Only someone who views people through their racial or their parents' racial origin (and there are plenty of words to describe people like that) would see someone in that way. I really loathe the way Labour - indeed, all parties - try and pigeonhole people in this way.
LD 2/5 (SJ)
PC 2/1 (Lad)
Lab 50/1
Con 150/1
Columnists don't have to be right, they have to stimulate debate and further thought. And be entertaining. And drive traffic to their site.
DHodges does all that; I hope he has a long and productive career.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIH-2lZF2yw
Lab 8/11 (PP)
Con 5/4 (Lad
LD 25/1 (PP) (The Ladbrokes price is 16/1)
UKIP 33/1 (Lad)
Out of interest, do you have local knowledge?
Not intentionally but still - also pity the poor LDs who have been sucking up to Labour for years.
IIRC finding hard nuggets of prediction in Glenda's boy's column is like trying to find firm bets in malcolmg's or humility in Stuart Dickson's. You come away with a vague assumption that they must be there, because they just must, right? But in fact you'd be wrong.
What time is it in Perth Mr T? Money spent on oysters and fine wine is rarely wasted whatever the bill.
CON most votes (at Euros) is currently 50/1 at Betfair and 22/1 at Bet365. And every other bookie including Shadsy has them at 20/1.
Last I heard was that macisback was living and working in Sweden.
a) a much better price than 2/1
or...
b) a proven PC polling surge
... before risking my cash.
http://sotonpolitics.org/2014/05/07/the-polling-observatory-forecast-1-lessons-for-2015-from-polling-history/
I am puzzled by the 'Vote Forecast by Date' graph. My understanding is that this is a graph of the central forecast based on the polls up to the date shown, so that (for example) we see the forecast for the LibDems declining slightly to the current forecast of 10.1%. That is fair enough, I get that.
But what are the dotted lines? The article doesn't specifically say, but my assumption is that they represent the upper and lower confidence bands (95% perhaps?) of the forecast, i.e that the forecast for the LibDems is currently in the range 8.3% to 11.9% with a central forecast of 10.1%.
However, if that is the case, why on earth are the bands not very much wider as you go back towards the earlier dates? You'd expect the polls in the middle of 2011 to tell you virtually nothing about an election in 2015, so the error bands should surely have been very much wider then than they are now.
Have I misunderstood something?
The same can happen with traditional bookies, but generally there's enough nibbling at medium-sized prices (16/1 - 66/1, say) to mean they don't succumb to this temptation.
Their problem will be the lack of Con-Lab switchers in polling from 2010 and the fact they are not attracting the protest vote.
Hard to see them winning from that base without an exceptional campaign.
UKIP on the other hand.......
At any rate there is
£ 3 @ 4.4
£10 @ 5.5
£25 @ 6.0
£10 @ 10.0
waiting to back Labour which is surely free money if you think they are a 33-1 shot.
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.113986228
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
backed the tories for the SE in the euros (not far behind on current polling and I think the 'an independence from europe' people will confuse a fair few voters. also think the tories vote may hold up here more than elsewhere)
I 've also chucked a fiver at a tricast -- Lab, Con,UKIP at 20/1 .
Also backed UKIP polling to be 25-30% at 9/4 and 20-25% at 7/1
The problem I have with this interpretation is that, if anything, the uncertainty band on the Conservative prediction appears to have widened slightly, rather than narrowed as I would have expected.
Also there are nearly as many independent councillors as PC.
Labour should be priced at the same price as the Cons - neither has a chance.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~nuff0084/ge15forecast/
As an aside: I think the Steve Fisher model is the most significant piece of work which has been done in advance of the 2015 GE. Not because of the central forecast, but because of the size of those error bars. Effectively, he is showing that the polling currently tells you almost nothing, given the historic experience of how polling moves in the year up to an election.
See also Anthony Wells on this point:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8307
The problem I have with this interpretation is that, if anything, the uncertainty band on the Conservative prediction appears to have widened slightly, rather than narrowed as I would have expected.
OK, yes, that would make some sense, except that in that case the bands are surely far too narrow.
Perhaps they represent one standard deviation not 95% confidence? That would be a bit more plausible.
Do Labour even take themselves seriously?
Intellectual self-confidence? Pffft.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27292633
Thai currency hits new high of 55 baht to pound sterling:
http://themoneyconverter.com/GBP/THB.aspx
http://news.sky.com/story/1256915/single-punch-killers-sentence-not-lenient
I'm assuming you're not proposing that a shelf stacker at Tesco (who probably would not lose his job) spends a few weeks in chokey if he's caught in possession of cocaine..
Perhaps they represent one standard deviation not 95% confidence? That would be a bit more plausible.Yes, I agree that the confidence intervals are too narrow - as you can tell by considering the vetogasm and it's effect on the predicted Tory share.
I think Steve Fisher probably takes things a bit too far in the other direction. There's not a 5% chance of the Tories polling less than 28% or more than 44.4%.
The last time that any party scored more than 44.4% it was Ted Heath's Tories in 1970. No-one is going to take 40-1 on that happening in 2015. And the last time the Tories received less than 30% of the vote at a general election was in 1832!
Of course, we should bear in mind the important caveat that the model is not a forecast as such, but a model based purely on opinion polling and ignoring everything else. So, as political punters, we need to treat it as telling us, not what the result might be, but how much weight we should give to current polling in forming our (currently largely subjective) forecasts of the plausible range of outcomes - to which the answer is: something, but not very much.
We might of course, after looking at the politics, the economy, the merits or otherwise of the leaders, and so on, decide that we think the shifts from current polling will be less than his model shows, or that they will be more skewed in one direction or the other. It's not an exact science, and we have to supplement the statistical analysis of flawed and noisy data with political judgement. That's the fun bit!