The EU needs to review their idea of a televised debate between candidates. You could just pull in five random people off the street none of whom has a chance of becoming Commission President. And I didn't receive my ballot paper at the polling station giving me a chance to vote for Ska. Typical Euro-shambles - I blame the Lib Dems.
I didn't watch because I assumed it would be a case of them all out federalising each other whilst pretending otherwise.
I saw the first few minutes of it and there wasn't any pretending otherwise. A bit more Europe and being more united blah, blah, blah, was about the gist of it
Oh even worse than I imagined.
I'm not a man of violence but a sentence beginning with 'Come the revolution...' did cross my mind. That was when I switched off.
@icarus - Looks like this could be the problem - hope your family and friends stay safe.
"Demonstrators clashed with police during a protest against the eviction of squatters from a building in Barcelona on Wednesday.
Police evicted activists from the iconic Can Vies center on Monday, occupied since 1997, following a court order when negotiations broke down between the city of Barcelona and the youth occupying the building."
LAB have drifted to 66/1 at Betfair. At that silly price you begin to get a bit tempted. Worth a fiver?
If UKIP take enough votes off CON, and LAB take enough votes off LIBDEM, could LAB not come through the middle? Must be worth at 66/1 punt?
Result - Newark 2010
Con 27,590 Lab 11,438 LD 10,246 UKIP 1,954
That's certainly an indictment of Labour.
Opposition party in second place with the third placed party disintegrating and nobody, well apart from OGH, thinks they have a chance.
As to whether 66/1 is value I'm not sure, I suspect we're more likely to see a disintegration of Labour's vote. Newark has the potential to be as humiliating for Labour as for the Conservatives or LibDems.
Hardly. It's not a Labour target. We had this with Eastleigh. Labour will be hoping for a Ukip tactical vote to further destabilise the Tories.
I'm sorry, that's really re-writing the facts to fit your reality. In Eastleigh Labour were in third place, and already had tactical voting in place to support the lib dems.
In Newark, they are second, so should be challenging to win. Giving up and dropping to third is not what a party looking for government should be doing.
Newark is an absolute no-hope seat for Labour, as you know. Backwater monocultural provincial semi rural seat in the middle of nowhere, just about as far away from a Labour target as it's possible to be without being in Surrey.
Labour should at least look like it is making an effort there.
This is why we just can't remain in the EU. They are a fundamentally dishonest organisation. We agree to cut our rebate for CAP reform. The reform never happens. We negotiate an agreement to not pay into the Eurozone bailout fund. We have to pay for the bailouts through another fund. We agree to cut the budget, but they put it up anyway through backroom channels. And out governments are complicit in their dishonesty. We get promised a referendum on the EU Constitution, but they rename it the Lisbon Treaty and say it's something different. We get a referendum lock on significant movement of powers to the EU. But this is just for treaties and they move stuff like Justice Affairs across to the EU via non-treaty mechanisms.
This is why us eurosceptics don't trust David Cameron at all on the referendum issue. I'm sure they'll announce some deal that sounds great in practice, and will shift the polls in the EU's favour in the short term. But, just with every other deal we've had in the last decade. It's going to fall apart in the small print, which will take a few months to come out. Cameron knows this full well, because he's a mendacious europhile, and hopes to hold a quick poll before the truth comes out.
That is an astonishing article (well perhaps not so astonishing as the EU has previous form, but you know what I mean). It shows how the structure of Europe often fails to deliver accountability, and also perhaps that the Eurocrats deliver on all the spending promises first and then look at the other promises which may or may not have been made and file them as looked at, but not possible.
It's precisely this sort of thing that really forces Cameron to deliver substantial reform, and should he encounter total resistance might just tip him into the out camp.
Hardly. It's not a Labour target. We had this with Eastleigh. Labour will be hoping for a Ukip tactical vote to further destabilise the Tories.
I'm sorry, that's really re-writing the facts to fit your reality. In Eastleigh Labour were in third place, and already had tactical voting in place to support the lib dems.
In Newark, they are second, so should be challenging to win. Giving up and dropping to third is not what a party looking for government should be doing.
Newark is an absolute no-hope seat for Labour, as you know. Backwater monocultural provincial semi rural seat in the middle of nowhere, just about as far away from a Labour target as it's possible to be without being in Surrey.
LAB have drifted to 66/1 at Betfair. At that silly price you begin to get a bit tempted. Worth a fiver?
If UKIP take enough votes off CON, and LAB take enough votes off LIBDEM, could LAB not come through the middle? Must be worth at 66/1 punt?
Result - Newark 2010
Con 27,590 Lab 11,438 LD 10,246 UKIP 1,954
That's certainly an indictment of Labour.
Opposition party in second place with the third placed party disintegrating and nobody, well apart from OGH, thinks they have a chance.
As to whether 66/1 is value I'm not sure, I suspect we're more likely to see a disintegration of Labour's vote. Newark has the potential to be as humiliating for Labour as for the Conservatives or LibDems.
Hardly. It's not a Labour target. We had this with Eastleigh. Labour will be hoping for a Ukip tactical vote to further destabilise the Tories.
I'm sorry, that's really re-writing the facts to fit your reality. In Eastleigh Labour were in third place, and already had tactical voting in place to support the lib dems.
In Newark, they are second, so should be challenging to win. Giving up and dropping to third is not what a party looking for government should be doing.
Newark is an absolute no-hope seat for Labour, as you know. Backwater monocultural provincial semi rural seat in the middle of nowhere, just about as far away from a Labour target as it's possible to be without being in Surrey.
I'm going to ignore your self-loathing of parts of this country, but labour were 2nd... SECOND in 2010. To suggest they shouldn't try to put in a good show at least is idiotic.
I am not trying to say you should be more controversial Nick, I just think that the childishness of political reporting means we get more emphasis on presentation and personality than actual policy. 24 hour media heightens this and turns politicians into bland clones. We get what we deserve I suppose.
Absolutely agree with that. My experience is that it's VERY easy to get media coverage if you offer some off-beat remark that makes either you or someone else look silly, and almost impossible to get media coverage for any serious argument. The media essentially see themselves as a branch of the entertainment industry.
There IS an audience out there for serious discussion. I've noticed with my local blogs (which 10% of constituents subscribe to) that I get near-zilch reaction if I just do a routine partisan piece, but lots of replies if I discuss the pros and cons of changes in policy. It's odd that the media doesn't have an organ that really talks to that market - the Independent started off with that pitch, but ended up as partisan and hectoring as anyone (I often agree with them but it's still a rubbish way to present the issues). Parts of the American media (e.g. USA Today) do a better job of separating "what the newspaper's proprietor wants" from a balanced discussion, as do many Continental papers.
This is why we just can't remain in the EU. They are a fundamentally dishonest organisation. We agree to cut our rebate for CAP reform. The reform never happens. We negotiate an agreement to not pay into the Eurozone bailout fund. We have to pay for the bailouts through another fund. We agree to cut the budget, but they put it up anyway through backroom channels. And out governments are complicit in their dishonesty. We get promised a referendum on the EU Constitution, but they rename it the Lisbon Treaty and say it's something different. We get a referendum lock on significant movement of powers to the EU. But this is just for treaties and they move stuff like Justice Affairs across to the EU via non-treaty mechanisms.
This is why us eurosceptics don't trust David Cameron at all on the referendum issue. I'm sure they'll announce some deal that sounds great in practice, and will shift the polls in the EU's favour in the short term. But, just with every other deal we've had in the last decade. It's going to fall apart in the small print, which will take a few months to come out. Cameron knows this full well, because he's a mendacious europhile, and hopes to hold a quick poll before the truth comes out.
That is an astonishing article (well perhaps not so astonishing as the EU has previous form, but you know what I mean). It shows how the structure of Europe often fails to deliver accountability, and also perhaps that the Eurocrats deliver on all the spending promises first and then look at the other promises which may or may not have been made and file them as looked at, but not possible.
It's precisely this sort of thing that really forces Cameron to deliver substantial reform, and should he encounter total resistance might just tip him into the out camp.
It's going to fall apart in the small print, which will take a few months to come out. Cameron knows this full well, because he's a mendacious europhile, and hopes to hold a quick poll before the truth comes out.
I think it'll take quite a lot longer, because the most likely outcome is some vague promises of stuff being in a future treaty, but EU treaties take 10 years, and and even if the future treaty contains what's promised there's a good chance they'll get spiked by a change of government or a referendum in one of the 28 countries somewhere along the way, quite possibly by the British.
LAB have drifted to 66/1 at Betfair. At that silly price you begin to get a bit tempted. Worth a fiver?
If UKIP take enough votes off CON, and LAB take enough votes off LIBDEM, could LAB not come through the middle? Must be worth at 66/1 punt?
Result - Newark 2010
Con 27,590 Lab 11,438 LD 10,246 UKIP 1,954
That's certainly an indictment of Labour.
Opposition party in second place with the third placed party disintegrating and nobody, well apart from OGH, thinks they have a chance.
As to whether 66/1 is value I'm not sure, I suspect we're more likely to see a disintegration of Labour's vote. Newark has the potential to be as humiliating for Labour as for the Conservatives or LibDems.
Hardly. It's not a Labour target. We had this with Eastleigh. Labour will be hoping for a Ukip tactical vote to further destabilise the Tories.
I'm sorry, that's really re-writing the facts to fit your reality. In Eastleigh Labour were in third place, and already had tactical voting in place to support the lib dems.
In Newark, they are second, so should be challenging to win. Giving up and dropping to third is not what a party looking for government should be doing.
Newark is an absolute no-hope seat for Labour, as you know. Backwater monocultural provincial semi rural seat in the middle of nowhere, just about as far away from a Labour target as it's possible to be without being in Surrey.
Survation is in essence saying what I tried to write earlier about pollsters, but was banned and purged on PB for saying it. Thank you Survation, but be careful, they might ban you from PB next.
As Financier famously never stakes less than £10,000 he would want shorter odds than that @Pulpstar
I'm still trying to work out if there are any actual 'certain' bets, or shares, or anything Bobafett. I guess leaving cash in my bank account counts as a ~ 2%/yr "Cert"
Love this thread, if someone from the right points something out , its roundly criticised, yet when the likes of Nick Palmer (et al) who was touting Labour 5% up and that voters appear to have made up their minds/no crossover... is proved to be utter nonsense, its greeted with silence..
LAB have drifted to 66/1 at Betfair. At that silly price you begin to get a bit tempted. Worth a fiver?
If UKIP take enough votes off CON, and LAB take enough votes off LIBDEM, could LAB not come through the middle? Must be worth at 66/1 punt?
Result - Newark 2010
Con 27,590 Lab 11,438 LD 10,246 UKIP 1,954
That's certainly an indictment of Labour.
Opposition party in second place with the third placed party disintegrating and nobody, well apart from OGH, thinks they have a chance.
As to whether 66/1 is value I'm not sure, I suspect we're more likely to see a disintegration of Labour's vote. Newark has the potential to be as humiliating for Labour as for the Conservatives or LibDems.
Hardly. It's not a Labour target. We had this with Eastleigh. Labour will be hoping for a Ukip tactical vote to further destabilise the Tories.
I'm sorry, that's really re-writing the facts to fit your reality. In Eastleigh Labour were in third place, and already had tactical voting in place to support the lib dems.
In Newark, they are second, so should be challenging to win. Giving up and dropping to third is not what a party looking for government should be doing.
Newark is an absolute no-hope seat for Labour, as you know. Backwater monocultural provincial semi rural seat in the middle of nowhere, just about as far away from a Labour target as it's possible to be without being in Surrey.
In the middle of nowhere? It's right in the middle of England - on the direct train line to London with IIRC significant connections to other places!
This is why we just can't remain in the EU. They are a fundamentally dishonest organisation. We agree to cut our rebate for CAP reform. The reform never happens. We negotiate an agreement to not pay into the Eurozone bailout fund. We have to pay for the bailouts through another fund. We agree to cut the budget, but they put it up anyway through backroom channels. And out governments are complicit in their dishonesty. We get promised a referendum on the EU Constitution, but they rename it the Lisbon Treaty and say it's something different. We get a referendum lock on significant movement of powers to the EU. But this is just for treaties and they move stuff like Justice Affairs across to the EU via non-treaty mechanisms.
This is why us eurosceptics don't trust David Cameron at all on the referendum issue. I'm sure they'll announce some deal that sounds great in practice, and will shift the polls in the EU's favour in the short term. But, just with every other deal we've had in the last decade. It's going to fall apart in the small print, which will take a few months to come out. Cameron knows this full well, because he's a mendacious europhile, and hopes to hold a quick poll before the truth comes out.
That is an astonishing article (well perhaps not so astonishing as the EU has previous form, but you know what I mean). It shows how the structure of Europe often fails to deliver accountability, and also perhaps that the Eurocrats deliver on all the spending promises first and then look at the other promises which may or may not have been made and file them as looked at, but not possible.
It's precisely this sort of thing that really forces Cameron to deliver substantial reform, and should he encounter total resistance might just tip him into the out camp.
And what should be written in letters of fire 10ft high... "Only David Cameron and the Tories can give us a referendum on Europe in 2017"
The pressure that UKIP has applied is absolutely super and it keeps Cameron's mind firmly fixed on his promise. Just imagine if Labour had topped the Euro poll - they had ruled out a referendum, and even worse, if UKIP had come 4th behind the LD's. In that scenario I think you'd find the referendum promise being de-emphasised and diluted.
Ed is feeling the Nick is Crap effect - the utter ineptitude of the LibDems (lost almost all MEPs, lose close to half your councillors, track the decapitation) makes Eds pig butty antics look professional
I actually saw the Bacongate clip the other day. Just looks like an ordinary bloke eating a bacon sarnie. The stills in the paper look bad, but how is one supposed to eat one? Like a lady who lunches, nibbling at the edges?
Standing up and not hunched.
Better still, don't go on staged meet-and-greets and fall into such obvious traps.
Who cares? Man goes to cafe and eats sandwich. Completely ridiculous - if you can really be bothered look at the clip. FFS.
I agree. I saw the video and thought he looked like a normal bloke eating a sandwich.
Hopefully the electorate are clever enough to rumble obvious media bias and childish photo selection. Last weeks results seem to indicate they are
LAB have drifted to 66/1 at Betfair. At that silly price you begin to get a bit tempted. Worth a fiver?
If UKIP take enough votes off CON, and LAB take enough votes off LIBDEM, could LAB not come through the middle? Must be worth at 66/1 punt?
Result - Newark 2010
Con 27,590 Lab 11,438 LD 10,246 UKIP 1,954
That's certainly an indictment of Labour.
Opposition party in second place with the third placed party disintegrating and nobody, well apart from OGH, thinks they have a chance.
As to whether 66/1 is value I'm not sure, I suspect we're more likely to see a disintegration of Labour's vote. Newark has the potential to be as humiliating for Labour as for the Conservatives or LibDems.
Hardly. It's not a Labour target. We had this with Eastleigh. Labour will be hoping for a Ukip tactical vote to further destabilise the Tories.
I'm sorry, that's really re-writing the facts to fit your reality. In Eastleigh Labour were in third place, and already had tactical voting in place to support the lib dems.
In Newark, they are second, so should be challenging to win. Giving up and dropping to third is not what a party looking for government should be doing.
Newark is an absolute no-hope seat for Labour, as you know. Backwater monocultural provincial semi rural seat in the middle of nowhere, just about as far away from a Labour target as it's possible to be without being in Surrey.
Take hundreds of pictures of anyone performing a simple task and you will get at least one that looks slightly odd, after that it becomes a matter of the picture editor finding the one that suits the papers or particular article's bias.
Labour grandee Tessa Jowell said the basic presentational errors of the campaign were unforgivable. ‘If you are a politician . . . don’t eat a bacon butty when the world’s cameras are on you.’
Is that 'media bias' too?
No, it's very sage advice given the media's proclivity to publish the worst possible photo of Ed Miliband in any given situation.
Not just Ed - ask "Riverdance Eck" about unfortunate photos......
For good or ill Labour seems to have decided not to fight hard in Newark. The LibDems are, of course, in a state of complete meltdown. Combine these two things with an economy that is clearly on the up and we should expect a very comfortable Tory win, shouldn't we?
No, Labour won a significantly different seat in 1997 with the same name. We wouldn't have won it in 1997 on current boundaries. And while Square Root is right that our lead has plunged dramatically from 5% 6 months ago to 4% yesterday, nobody is really describing it as a 1997-style lead.
I am not trying to say you should be more controversial Nick, I just think that the childishness of political reporting means we get more emphasis on presentation and personality than actual policy. 24 hour media heightens this and turns politicians into bland clones. We get what we deserve I suppose.
Absolutely agree with that. My experience is that it's VERY easy to get media coverage if you offer some off-beat remark that makes either you or someone else look silly, and almost impossible to get media coverage for any serious argument. The media essentially see themselves as a branch of the entertainment industry.
There IS an audience out there for serious discussion. I've noticed with my local blogs (which 10% of constituents subscribe to) that I get near-zilch reaction if I just do a routine partisan piece, but lots of replies if I discuss the pros and cons of changes in policy. It's odd that the media doesn't have an organ that really talks to that market - the Independent started off with that pitch, but ended up as partisan and hectoring as anyone (I often agree with them but it's still a rubbish way to present the issues). Parts of the American media (e.g. USA Today) do a better job of separating "what the newspaper's proprietor wants" from a balanced discussion, as do many Continental papers.
My bold. I completely agree with that and I would love a non partisan broadsheet to subscribe to. Unfortunately there's nothing in the UK.
LAB have drifted to 66/1 at Betfair. At that silly price you begin to get a bit tempted. Worth a fiver?
If UKIP take enough votes off CON, and LAB take enough votes off LIBDEM, could LAB not come through the middle? Must be worth at 66/1 punt?
Result - Newark 2010
Con 27,590 Lab 11,438 LD 10,246 UKIP 1,954
That's certainly an indictment of Labour.
Opposition party in second place with the third placed party disintegrating and nobody, well apart from OGH, thinks they have a chance.
As to whether 66/1 is value I'm not sure, I suspect we're more likely to see a disintegration of Labour's vote. Newark has the potential to be as humiliating for Labour as for the Conservatives or LibDems.
Hardly. It's not a Labour target. We had this with Eastleigh. Labour will be hoping for a Ukip tactical vote to further destabilise the Tories.
I'm sorry, that's really re-writing the facts to fit your reality. In Eastleigh Labour were in third place, and already had tactical voting in place to support the lib dems.
In Newark, they are second, so should be challenging to win. Giving up and dropping to third is not what a party looking for government should be doing.
Newark is an absolute no-hope seat for Labour, as you know. Backwater monocultural provincial semi rural seat in the middle of nowhere, just about as far away from a Labour target as it's possible to be without being in Surrey.
No, New Labour won in 1997. And not just Newark, in all kinds of interesting Tory places. Thing is, take a life expired Tory government, take a Tory clone to lead Labour with Tory friendly policies and I'm not surprised you can win Tory seats.
The difference now is that Ed Milliband isn't a Tory clone, isn't offering machine stamped identikit Tory policies, and that's why the establishment hate him - their candidate narrowly lost. So can Labour win Tory seats? A few probably, but not all. You need to win those to have a landslide majority but let's be honest about it, any party with a vast majority abuses it. It's bad for democracy.
Newark is an absolute no-hope seat for Labour, as you know. Backwater monocultural provincial semi rural seat in the middle of nowhere, just about as far away from a Labour target as it's possible to be without being in Surrey.
What a very curious post. Labour the party for one nation, unless ...
@SimonStClare Ed M's twitter stream has some appalling shots, either they have given up or they still employ interns.
For a stage managed event, it was very poorly executed - More sage advice, if a photo op goes tits up, make sure you are holding at least two Union Jacks..!
MikeK - Your comments re pollsters are unacceptable.
Anyone attacking the integrity of the pollsters will find their ability to instantly publish revoked.
Do I get a lollipop for being a snitch ?
What a woeful web we weave, when there is no free speech on PB. I wasn't attacking Pollsters per se, I was questioning the way they pose those questions. I find that quite acceptable, even if PB is getting too lily livered to question the pollsters methods, which we all used to do without being banned or purged.
You get half a lollipop, I've bitten off the other half in (pseudo) rage.
LAB have drifted to 66/1 at Betfair. At that silly price you begin to get a bit tempted. Worth a fiver?
If UKIP take enough votes off CON, and LAB take enough votes off LIBDEM, could LAB not come through the middle? Must be worth at 66/1 punt?
Result - Newark 2010
Con 27,590 Lab 11,438 LD 10,246 UKIP 1,954
That's certainly an indictment of Labour.
Opposition party in second place with the third placed party disintegrating and nobody, well apart from OGH, thinks they have a chance.
As to whether 66/1 is value I'm not sure, I suspect we're more likely to see a disintegration of Labour's vote. Newark has the potential to be as humiliating for Labour as for the Conservatives or LibDems.
Hardly. It's not a Labour target. We had this with Eastleigh. Labour will be hoping for a Ukip tactical vote to further destabilise the Tories.
I'm sorry, that's really re-writing the facts to fit your reality. In Eastleigh Labour were in third place, and already had tactical voting in place to support the lib dems.
In Newark, they are second, so should be challenging to win. Giving up and dropping to third is not what a party looking for government should be doing.
Newark is an absolute no-hope seat for Labour, as you know. Backwater monocultural provincial semi rural seat in the middle of nowhere, just about as far away from a Labour target as it's possible to be without being in Surrey.
BEFORE THE ELECTION @MikeSmithson thougt the AIFE vote would scupper UKIP and the 2% they got where they stood was in line with his expectations
AFTER THE RESULTS @Antifrank says adding a portion of the AIFE score to UKIP's is desperate clutching by a party that won their first ever election and have no need to clutch to anything
LAB have drifted to 66/1 at Betfair. At that silly price you begin to get a bit tempted. Worth a fiver?
If UKIP take enough votes off CON, and LAB take enough votes off LIBDEM, could LAB not come through the middle? Must be worth at 66/1 punt?
Result - Newark 2010
Con 27,590 Lab 11,438 LD 10,246 UKIP 1,954
That's certainly an indictment of Labour.
Opposition party in second place with the third placed party disintegrating and nobody, well apart from OGH, thinks they have a chance.
As to whether 66/1 is value I'm not sure, I suspect we're more likely to see a disintegration of Labour's vote. Newark has the potential to be as humiliating for Labour as for the Conservatives or LibDems.
Hardly. It's not a Labour target. We had this with Eastleigh. Labour will be hoping for a Ukip tactical vote to further destabilise the Tories.
I'm sorry, that's really re-writing the facts to fit your reality. In Eastleigh Labour were in third place, and already had tactical voting in place to support the lib dems.
In Newark, they are second, so should be challenging to win. Giving up and dropping to third is not what a party looking for government should be doing.
Newark is an absolute no-hope seat for Labour, as you know. Backwater monocultural provincial semi rural seat in the middle of nowhere, just about as far away from a Labour target as it's possible to be without being in Surrey.
No, New Labour won in 1997. And not just Newark, in all kinds of interesting Tory places. Thing is, take a life expired Tory government, take a Tory clone to lead Labour with Tory friendly policies and I'm not surprised you can win Tory seats.
The difference now is that Ed Milliband isn't a Tory clone, isn't offering machine stamped identikit Tory policies, and that's why the establishment hate him - their candidate narrowly lost. So can Labour win Tory seats? A few probably, but not all. You need to win those to have a landslide majority but let's be honest about it, any party with a vast majority abuses it. It's bad for democracy.
So what is Ed Miliband then ? Is he Hollande without the ability to attract ladies or is he the armed political wing of Which? magazine ?
Investors facing big losses over fracking in USA.Further concerns for UK.
"Shale debt has almost doubled over the last four years while revenue has gained just 5.6 percent, according to a Bloomberg News analysis of 61 shale drillers. A dozen of those wildcatters are spending at least 10 percent of their sales on interest compared with Exxon Mobil Corp.’s 0.1 percent.
“The list of companies that are financially stressed is considerable,” said Benjamin Dell, managing partner of Kimmeridge Energy, a New York-based alternative asset manager focused on energy. “Not everyone is going to survive. We’ve seen it before.”"
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
Very interesting Jack - on these numbers, compared with the the 2010 GE result, the Tories win a net 11 seats, Labour win a net 10 seats and the LibDems lose a net 25 seats.
Unless I'm missing something, these figures only work if the net loss of Tory seats to Labour is limited to around a mere handful.
As I've suggested before, such an outcome appears to provide a whole range of attractive betting opportunities on would-be held Tory seats, always assuming Ladbrokes re-introduce their constituency markets at odds akin to those previously on offer.
LAB have drifted to 66/1 at Betfair. At that silly price you begin to get a bit tempted. Worth a fiver?
If UKIP take enough votes off CON, and LAB take enough votes off LIBDEM, could LAB not come through the middle? Must be worth at 66/1 punt?
Result - Newark 2010
Con 27,590 Lab 11,438 LD 10,246 UKIP 1,954
That's certainly an indictment of Labour.
Opposition party in second place with the third placed party disintegrating and nobody, well apart from OGH, thinks they have a chance.
As to whether 66/1 is value I'm not sure, I suspect we're more likely to see a disintegration of Labour's vote. Newark has the potential to be as humiliating for Labour as for the Conservatives or LibDems.
Hardly. It's not a Labour target. We had this with Eastleigh. Labour will be hoping for a Ukip tactical vote to further destabilise the Tories.
I'm sorry, that's really re-writing the facts to fit your reality. In Eastleigh Labour were in third place, and already had tactical voting in place to support the lib dems.
In Newark, they are second, so should be challenging to win. Giving up and dropping to third is not what a party looking for government should be doing.
Newark is an absolute no-hope seat for Labour, as you know. Backwater monocultural provincial semi rural seat in the middle of nowhere, just about as far away from a Labour target as it's possible to be without being in Surrey.
In the middle of nowhere? It's right in the middle of England - on the direct train line to London with IIRC significant connections to other places!
Its not in London and and its a monoculture so it doesnt really matter it seems
LAB have drifted to 66/1 at Betfair. At that silly price you begin to get a bit tempted. Worth a fiver?
If UKIP take enough votes off CON, and LAB take enough votes off LIBDEM, could LAB not come through the middle? Must be worth at 66/1 punt?
Result - Newark 2010
Con 27,590 Lab 11,438 LD 10,246 UKIP 1,954
That's certainly an indictment of Labour.
Opposition party in second place with the third placed party disintegrating and nobody, well apart from OGH, thinks they have a chance.
As to whether 66/1 is value I'm not sure, I suspect we're more likely to see a disintegration of Labour's vote. Newark has the potential to be as humiliating for Labour as for the Conservatives or LibDems.
Hardly. It's not a Labour target. We had this with Eastleigh. Labour will be hoping for a Ukip tactical vote to further destabilise the Tories.
I'm sorry, that's really re-writing the facts to fit your reality. In Eastleigh Labour were in third place, and already had tactical voting in place to support the lib dems.
In Newark, they are second, so should be challenging to win. Giving up and dropping to third is not what a party looking for government should be doing.
Newark is an absolute no-hope seat for Labour, as you know. Backwater monocultural provincial semi rural seat in the middle of nowhere, just about as far away from a Labour target as it's possible to be without being in Surrey.
In 1997 the only seats the Tories won were the sorts of places men with pitchforks burn you at the stake for voting anything other than Conservative.
And yet Labour think this is the most damaging and worst government 'evah'.
No ones saying they will win the seat, but not to even try to compete shows a complete lack of ambition and faith in labours message. Maybe there is something in Dan Hodges '35%' theory.
And what should be written in letters of fire 10ft high... "Only David Cameron and the Tories can give us a referendum on Europe in 2017"
The pressure that UKIP has applied is absolutely super and it keeps Cameron's mind firmly fixed on his promise. Just imagine if Labour had topped the Euro poll - they had ruled out a referendum, and even worse, if UKIP had come 4th behind the LD's. In that scenario I think you'd find the referendum promise being de-emphasised and diluted.
Quite right. I do think Cameron is pretty pro-Europe at heart, also that he's frustrated with it. Inevitably there may come a point when he really does start to think that 'out' might not be so awful after all. He will certainly need that mindset, and convince others that he does so, in order to stand the smallest chance of getting the breadth and scope of reform needed. I don't really believe that he (or anyone else) can pull that off, but I'm certainly keen to see him try. I'd so much prefer to vote to stay in a radically reformed EU than to vote to leave.
IMO Labour at anything over (say) 30/1 to win Newark is good value. I've just had a few quid at 60.0 on Betfair.
Of course it is very unlikely that Labour will win. The odds reflect that; the only question is whether the odds reflect it sufficiently to make the bet worth a long-shot punt. Certainly it is possible to imagine a scenario in which Labour do win, as Stuart D posted upthread. Strange things happen in by-elections, and the non-Labour vote is going to be very split.
LAB have drifted to 66/1 at Betfair. At that silly price you begin to get a bit tempted. Worth a fiver?
If UKIP take enough votes off CON, and LAB take enough votes off LIBDEM, could LAB not come through the middle? Must be worth at 66/1 punt?
Result - Newark 2010
Con 27,590 Lab 11,438 LD 10,246 UKIP 1,954
That's certainly an indictment of Labour.
Opposition party in second place with the third placed party disintegrating and nobody, well apart from OGH, thinks they have a chance.
As to whether 66/1 is value I'm not sure, I suspect we're more likely to see a disintegration of Labour's vote. Newark has the potential to be as humiliating for Labour as for the Conservatives or LibDems.
Hardly. It's not a Labour target. We had this with Eastleigh. Labour will be hoping for a Ukip tactical vote to further destabilise the Tories.
I'm sorry, that's really re-writing the facts to fit your reality. In Eastleigh Labour were in third place, and already had tactical voting in place to support the lib dems.
In Newark, they are second, so should be challenging to win. Giving up and dropping to third is not what a party looking for government should be doing.
Newark is an absolute no-hope seat for Labour, as you know. Backwater monocultural provincial semi rural seat in the middle of nowhere, just about as far away from a Labour target as it's possible to be without being in Surrey.
IMO Labour at anything over (say) 30/1 to win Newark is good value. I've just had a few quid at 60.0 on Betfair.
Of course it is very unlikely that Labour will win. The odds reflect that; the only question is whether the odds reflect it sufficiently to make the bet worth a long-shot punt. Certainly it is possible to imagine a scenario in which Labour do win, as Stuart D posted upthread. Strange things happen in by-elections, and the non-Labour vote is going to be very split.
Mr Farage in the Telegraph: "...an opportunity has arisen for the Prime Minister to show he is serious when he says his guiding principle is “nation states wherever possible and Europe only where necessary”. For Britain is currently negotiating with the EU over whether to opt back into dozens of justice and home affairs measures that are being turned into European competencies under the Lisbon Treaty.
We could stay out of them all. That would, after all, tally with the Cameron principle of “nation states wherever possible”. But it seems that instead, the Prime Minister is going to hand control to the EU permanently in 35 areas, the most notable of which is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). It was under this warrant, remember, that Andrew Symeou was held in a Greek prison for four years before being cleared of involvement in a killing outside a nightclub."
O/T but why are local govt websites so colossally useless. It's a week since the election and my local council still hasn't updated the list of Councillors.
Mr Farage in the Telegraph: "...an opportunity has arisen for the Prime Minister to show he is serious when he says his guiding principle is “nation states wherever possible and Europe only where necessary”. For Britain is currently negotiating with the EU over whether to opt back into dozens of justice and home affairs measures that are being turned into European competencies under the Lisbon Treaty.
We could stay out of them all. That would, after all, tally with the Cameron principle of “nation states wherever possible”. But it seems that instead, the Prime Minister is going to hand control to the EU permanently in 35 areas, the most notable of which is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). It was under this warrant, remember, that Andrew Symeou was held in a Greek prison for four years before being cleared of involvement in a killing outside a nightclub."
Very glad Mr Farage/UKIP is highlighting this. It requires a vote in parliament, and I'm hoping it will not pass.
The government has already agreed that UK courts will now not be the exclusive venues in which the validity of patents applicable in the UK will be decided. Commercially, the implications of that could be very big indeed: a court located in, say, Bulgaria will soon potentially have the right to invalidate a patent covering the UK, owned by a British company, operating solely in the UK.
Newark...... Labours problem is that it might seem tempting to take their foot off the gas, and if UKIP take it, enjoy the short term embarrassment and panic in the gvt, but if they go backwards it makes UKIP look like the opposition in waiting. It's no good for Ed to win 250 seats and see UKIP Hoover up loads of Tory targets, because UKIP won't support an Ed premiership, they will support a Dave premiership and an in/out.
Ed is feeling the Nick is Crap effect - the utter ineptitude of the LibDems (lost almost all MEPs, lose close to half your councillors, track the decapitation) makes Eds pig butty antics look professional
I actually saw the Bacongate clip the other day. Just looks like an ordinary bloke eating a bacon sarnie. The stills in the paper look bad, but how is one supposed to eat one? Like a lady who lunches, nibbling at the edges?
Standing up and not hunched.
Better still, don't go on staged meet-and-greets and fall into such obvious traps.
Who cares? Man goes to cafe and eats sandwich. Completely ridiculous - if you can really be bothered look at the clip. FFS.
It was a Labour-planned photoshoot. Stop mewling and accept it was an entirely avoidable balls-up.
Remove your claws forthwith. Bloke eats bacon. What I like about Ed is that he doesn't go into cafes worried about what a few stills on a reel might look like, in the manner of a vain teenage schoolgirl.
Unlike his minders who were so keen to block any shots from the assembled camera crews, and you, who is still desperately trying to spin the story up in Dorky Ed's favour, nearly a week later.
Mr Farage in the Telegraph: "...an opportunity has arisen for the Prime Minister to show he is serious when he says his guiding principle is “nation states wherever possible and Europe only where necessary”. For Britain is currently negotiating with the EU over whether to opt back into dozens of justice and home affairs measures that are being turned into European competencies under the Lisbon Treaty.
We could stay out of them all. That would, after all, tally with the Cameron principle of “nation states wherever possible”. But it seems that instead, the Prime Minister is going to hand control to the EU permanently in 35 areas, the most notable of which is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). It was under this warrant, remember, that Andrew Symeou was held in a Greek prison for four years before being cleared of involvement in a killing outside a nightclub."
Very glad Mr Farage/UKIP is highlighting this. It requires a vote in parliament, and I'm hoping it will not pass.
The government has already agreed that UK courts will now not be the exclusive venues in which the validity of patents applicable in the UK will be decided. Commercially, the implications of that could be very big indeed: a court located in, say, Bulgaria will soon potentially have the right to invalidate a patent covering the UK, owned by a British company, operating solely in the UK.
That's an argument against an EU patent authority. Not an argument in favour of passing Justice and Home Affairs powers to the EU.
No, Labour won a significantly different seat in 1997 with the same name. We wouldn't have won it in 1997 on current boundaries. And while Square Root is right that our lead has plunged dramatically from 5% 6 months ago to 4% yesterday, nobody is really describing it as a 1997-style lead.
Nick
2014 Monthly Labour lead averages from YouGov daily polls has declined from 5.74 in January to 2.6 in May to date.
I don't think Ed Miliband has really ever been a drag for Labour. Of course if pollsters and journalists go out asking people, would you vote for that weirdo Miliband, then you will get a certain amount of negativiity. It has been school playground 'pick on geeky/weirdo' stuff really. When people start to think like intelligent adults, they come to different opinions and realise that the image of a politician is not that important. They like Boris and he comes out with some really baffling stuff. He would make PMQ's more entertaining, but would be embarrasing when representing the country at an international level.
I'm sorry, that's really re-writing the facts to fit your reality. In Eastleigh Labour were in third place, and already had tactical voting in place to support the lib dems.
In Newark, they are second, so should be challenging to win. Giving up and dropping to third is not what a party looking for government should be doing.
Newark is an absolute no-hope seat for Labour, as you know. Backwater monocultural provincial semi rural seat in the middle of nowhere, just about as far away from a Labour target as it's possible to be without being in Surrey.
The main town in the constituency is Newark-on-Trent with a population of ~25,000. Thus it lies in the 10,000-100,000 range that I feel identifies the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands that are home to the swing voters.
So, yes, most of the seat is a rural Tory heartland, but not all of it, and one of the features of by-elections is that oppositions are normally able to achieve a higher swing in them than at the following general election. So something like a 10% swing to Labour should be reasonably achievable, which would put them just over ten points behind.
With a bit of luck and a following wind an Opposition would normally expect to be able to do enough to cause a few jitters in the Government side. Suppose, for example, that we apply the Corby 2012 by-election swings to the Newark 2010 result. It would give us:
Interestingly the UKIP increase is almost equal to the Conservative decrease, and similarly with Labour and the Lib Dems, so it's not unreasonable to posit the scenario where UKIP does better in the Newark by-election than at Corby, and that Labour benefits more from squeezing the larger Lib Dem vote in Newark. This could produce the following scenario:
No, Labour won a significantly different seat in 1997 with the same name. We wouldn't have won it in 1997 on current boundaries. And while Square Root is right that our lead has plunged dramatically from 5% 6 months ago to 4% yesterday, nobody is really describing it as a 1997-style lead.
Nick
2014 Monthly Labour lead averages from YouGov daily polls has declined from 5.74 in January to 2.6 in May to date.
Nick is cannily selective in his use of YouGov figures.
I am not trying to say you should be more controversial Nick, I just think that the childishness of political reporting means we get more emphasis on presentation and personality than actual policy. 24 hour media heightens this and turns politicians into bland clones. We get what we deserve I suppose.
Absolutely agree with that. My experience is that it's VERY easy to get media coverage if you offer some off-beat remark that makes either you or someone else look silly, and almost impossible to get media coverage for any serious argument. The media essentially see themselves as a branch of the entertainment industry.
There IS an audience out there for serious discussion. I've noticed with my local blogs (which 10% of constituents subscribe to) that I get near-zilch reaction if I just do a routine partisan piece, but lots of replies if I discuss the pros and cons of changes in policy. It's odd that the media doesn't have an organ that really talks to that market - the Independent started off with that pitch, but ended up as partisan and hectoring as anyone (I often agree with them but it's still a rubbish way to present the issues). Parts of the American media (e.g. USA Today) do a better job of separating "what the newspaper's proprietor wants" from a balanced discussion, as do many Continental papers.
My bold. I completely agree with that and I would love a non partisan broadsheet to subscribe to. Unfortunately there's nothing in the UK.
On Newark, if the Tories win, UKIP a respectable but not especially close second, Labour a little bit back in third - what, in the final 12 months of this Parliament, is the media story going to be? UKIP chasing hard on Tory safe seats - or Ed is crap?
"Blair projects a total authenticity that none of the current crop of leaders have"
The number of people that believe Blair displays "authenticity" must be in single digits. He is widely accepted as the most spin heavy UK politician for... well, ever.
On Newark, if the Tories win, UKIP a respectable but not especially close second, Labour a little bit back in third - what, in the final 12 months of this Parliament, is the media story going to be? UKIP chasing hard on Tory safe seats - or Ed is crap?
We are definitely in 91/92 redux. Labour, ahead in the polls slightly, burdened with an unelectable oaf, refusing to believe that swing back will see them defeated. We just need a Sheffield rally to seal the deal.
"the idea that the UK could strike a better bargain, negotiating solo with the behemoth economies of China, India, Brazil and the US, rather than leveraging the collective bargaining power of the largest global bloc, is a fiction."
That only makes sense if you're all singing from the same hymn sheet. But us and the French never do. So the collective bargaining power of having a large bloc is more than negated by the fact that half of our table doesn't have our interests at heart.
"Immigration, looked at calmly and over time, has been a huge net benefit to the UK."
Only if you're hand-wringing lefty that thinks Wembley is wonderful for its "diversity". Most of the public recognise that mass unskilled immigration has put huge pressure on house prices, caused a shortage of school places, made good paying work more difficult for the natives, damaged social cohesion and also created a string of problems like gun crime, FGM and home grown terrorism.
These are the same bog standard arguments that are commonly trotted out on here and don't bear scrutiny. Nothing "quality" about them.
On Newark, if the Tories win, UKIP a respectable but not especially close second, Labour a little bit back in third - what, in the final 12 months of this Parliament, is the media story going to be? UKIP chasing hard on Tory safe seats - or Ed is crap?
Can't it be both?
I suspect for the papers on the left - the Mirror, the Guardian, the Indy (does it even exist any more?) they will simply try not to report it. They are unlikely to go on Ed is crap - but equally, unlikely to want to big up UKIP who would have pushed Labour into third.
How the Murdoch press reports Newark will be instructive though.
Mr Farage in the Telegraph: "...an opportunity has arisen for the Prime Minister to show he is serious when he says his guiding principle is “nation states wherever possible and Europe only where necessary”. For Britain is currently negotiating with the EU over whether to opt back into dozens of justice and home affairs measures that are being turned into European competencies under the Lisbon Treaty.
We could stay out of them all. That would, after all, tally with the Cameron principle of “nation states wherever possible”. But it seems that instead, the Prime Minister is going to hand control to the EU permanently in 35 areas, the most notable of which is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). It was under this warrant, remember, that Andrew Symeou was held in a Greek prison for four years before being cleared of involvement in a killing outside a nightclub."
Very glad Mr Farage/UKIP is highlighting this. It requires a vote in parliament, and I'm hoping it will not pass.
It's pretty obvious David Cameron is not serious about winning back powers from the EU when he's already handing over new ones. Completely against the spirit of his referendum lock, no less.
On Newark, if the Tories win, UKIP a respectable but not especially close second, Labour a little bit back in third - what, in the final 12 months of this Parliament, is the media story going to be? UKIP chasing hard on Tory safe seats - or Ed is crap?
Can't it be both?
I suspect for the papers on the left - the Mirror, the Guardian, the Indy (does it even exist any more?) they will simply try not to report it. They are unlikely to go on Ed is crap - but equally, unlikely to want to big up UKIP who would have pushed Labour into third.
How the Murdoch press reports Newark will be instructive though.
No, Labour won a significantly different seat in 1997 with the same name. We wouldn't have won it in 1997 on current boundaries. And while Square Root is right that our lead has plunged dramatically from 5% 6 months ago to 4% yesterday, nobody is really describing it as a 1997-style lead.
Nick
2014 Monthly Labour lead averages from YouGov daily polls has declined from 5.74 in January to 2.6 in May to date.
Nick is cannily selective in his use of YouGov figures.
Yes, a useful habit for a politico. If that trend continued until May 2015 then the Cons would have a 5-6pt lead - possible but not probable?.
We are definitely in 91/92 redux. Labour, ahead in the polls slightly, burdened with an unelectable oaf, refusing to believe that swing back will see them defeated. We just need a Sheffield rally to seal the deal.
Bobafett's already up on stage, punching the air and shouting out "We're alright!"
No, Labour won a significantly different seat in 1997 with the same name. We wouldn't have won it in 1997 on current boundaries. And while Square Root is right that our lead has plunged dramatically from 5% 6 months ago to 4% yesterday, nobody is really describing it as a 1997-style lead.
Nick
2014 Monthly Labour lead averages from YouGov daily polls has declined from 5.74 in January to 2.6 in May to date.
Nick is cannily selective in his use of YouGov figures.
Yes, a useful habit for a politico. If that trend continued until May 2015 then the Cons would have a 5-6pt lead - possible but not probable?.
On Newark, if the Tories win, UKIP a respectable but not especially close second, Labour a little bit back in third - what, in the final 12 months of this Parliament, is the media story going to be? UKIP chasing hard on Tory safe seats - or Ed is crap?
Can't it be both?
I suspect for the papers on the left - the Mirror, the Guardian, the Indy (does it even exist any more?) they will simply try not to report it. They are unlikely to go on Ed is crap - but equally, unlikely to want to big up UKIP who would have pushed Labour into third.
How the Murdoch press reports Newark will be instructive though.
I suspect unless it's a UKIP gain or unreasonably close it will be reported as the potential beginning of the end of the Faragegasm.
We are definitely in 91/92 redux. Labour, ahead in the polls slightly, burdened with an unelectable oaf, refusing to believe that swing back will see them defeated. We just need a Sheffield rally to seal the deal.
Bobafett's already up on stage, punching the air and shouting out "We're alright!"
The Spitting Image post election special should be worth a gander
"the idea that the UK could strike a better bargain, negotiating solo with the behemoth economies of China, India, Brazil and the US, rather than leveraging the collective bargaining power of the largest global bloc, is a fiction."
That only makes sense if you're all singing from the same hymn sheet. But us and the French never do. So the collective bargaining power of having a large bloc is more than negated by the fact that half of our table doesn't have our interests at heart.
"Immigration, looked at calmly and over time, has been a huge net benefit to the UK."
Only if you're hand-wringing lefty that thinks Wembley is wonderful for its "diversity". Most of the public recognise that mass unskilled immigration has put huge pressure on house prices, caused a shortage of school places, made good paying work more difficult for the natives, damaged social cohesion and also created a string of problems like gun crime, FGM and home grown terrorism.
These are the same bog standard arguments that are commonly trotted out on here and don't bear scrutiny. Nothing "quality" about them.
Mass immigration is good for the rich and bad for the poor. If any government really put poorest people in their own country ahead of anyone else they would stop the import of cheap unskilled labour, regardless of political dogma.
But seeing as we have controlled immigration from Africa, how has the FGM problem become so big?
This is FPP. There is no point wasting resources on unwinnable seats. It really is that simple.
Yes, Labour really need to pile their resources into all those other Westminster seats that are up for election in the next month.
They will be ploughing resources into photo shoots showing third place Ed as PM in waiting. Ed eats a pizza and looks goofy Ed buys perfume and stops on the way home to eat some chips, and looks goofy The two Eds in a goofball two for one front page splash Yvette shows up for the first time in three years and looks earnest
Ed.s going through the motions a little with ex-Labour Ukip voters ... "Yes, we're listening and we understand your pain, but ..."
Listening is OK, but Gordon Listened to Mrs Duffy, and as soon as she was out of earshot ... "She's a bigoted woman."
Probably a step forward to listen but not likely to be too effective on its own. So I suspect it will soon be back to demonisation. Interesting times indeed.
We are definitely in 91/92 redux. Labour, ahead in the polls slightly, burdened with an unelectable oaf, refusing to believe that swing back will see them defeated. We just need a Sheffield rally to seal the deal.
Bobafett's already up on stage, punching the air and shouting out "We're alright!"
That inspired a Viz top tip.. Any pensioners feeling the cold this winter and unable to afford to keep the heating on should picture Neil Kinnocks Sheffield rally where he shouted "We're alright!".. The glow of embarrassment will keep you warm all winter.*
I predicted the number of Tory seats to within 2 in 1992. It wasn't a surprise victory for the Tories to all of us.... ;-)
I will keep you posted on my thoughts for 2015. For now, I think much depends on quite how disastrously bad the campaign is for Labour. The way the Euros campaign went leads me to think there is now a 25-30% chance it will be catastrophically bad for Labour.
I am not trying to say you should be more controversial Nick, I just think that the childishness of political reporting means we get more emphasis on presentation and personality than actual policy. 24 hour media heightens this and turns politicians into bland clones. We get what we deserve I suppose.
Absolutely agree with that. My experience is that it's VERY easy to get media coverage if you offer some off-beat remark that makes either you or someone else look silly, and almost impossible to get media coverage for any serious argument. The media essentially see themselves as a branch of the entertainment industry.
There IS an audience out there for serious discussion. I've noticed with my local blogs (which 10% of constituents subscribe to) that I get near-zilch reaction if I just do a routine partisan piece, but lots of replies if I discuss the pros and cons of changes in policy. It's odd that the media doesn't have an organ that really talks to that market - the Independent started off with that pitch, but ended up as partisan and hectoring as anyone (I often agree with them but it's still a rubbish way to present the issues). Parts of the American media (e.g. USA Today) do a better job of separating "what the newspaper's proprietor wants" from a balanced discussion, as do many Continental papers.
My bold. I completely agree with that and I would love a non partisan broadsheet to subscribe to. Unfortunately there's nothing in the UK.
Investors facing big losses over fracking in USA.Further concerns for UK.
"Shale debt has almost doubled over the last four years while revenue has gained just 5.6 percent, according to a Bloomberg News analysis of 61 shale drillers. A dozen of those wildcatters are spending at least 10 percent of their sales on interest compared with Exxon Mobil Corp.’s 0.1 percent.
“The list of companies that are financially stressed is considerable,” said Benjamin Dell, managing partner of Kimmeridge Energy, a New York-based alternative asset manager focused on energy. “Not everyone is going to survive. We’ve seen it before.”"
Which again raises the problem of who pays for any environmental clean-up that might be needed? Not the firms who have gone bust. Profits are privatised, losses are nationalised.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27615461
Interesting he says "I am supporting the party leader" rather than mentioning him by name. It just seems somewhat less than full throated.
"Demonstrators clashed with police during a protest against the eviction of squatters from a building in Barcelona on Wednesday.
Police evicted activists from the iconic Can Vies center on Monday, occupied since 1997, following a court order when negotiations broke down between the city of Barcelona and the youth occupying the building."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/spanish-police-clash-protesters-over-barcelona-evictions-n117016
It's precisely this sort of thing that really forces Cameron to deliver substantial reform, and should he encounter total resistance might just tip him into the out camp.
This is one nation labour remember!
Void risks, one side failing to pay out risks, odds shifting during placement risks, account closing risks...
As Financier famously never stakes less than £10,000 he would want shorter odds than that @Pulpstar
There IS an audience out there for serious discussion. I've noticed with my local blogs (which 10% of constituents subscribe to) that I get near-zilch reaction if I just do a routine partisan piece, but lots of replies if I discuss the pros and cons of changes in policy. It's odd that the media doesn't have an organ that really talks to that market - the Independent started off with that pitch, but ended up as partisan and hectoring as anyone (I often agree with them but it's still a rubbish way to present the issues). Parts of the American media (e.g. USA Today) do a better job of separating "what the newspaper's proprietor wants" from a balanced discussion, as do many Continental papers.
I think Notts is lovely!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Jones
Never again.
Just saying.
The pressure that UKIP has applied is absolutely super and it keeps Cameron's mind firmly fixed on his promise. Just imagine if Labour had topped the Euro poll - they had ruled out a referendum, and even worse, if UKIP had come 4th behind the LD's. In that scenario I think you'd find the referendum promise being de-emphasised and diluted.
Hopefully the electorate are clever enough to rumble obvious media bias and childish photo selection. Last weeks results seem to indicate they are
I bet 100 quid on one outcome with Ladbrokes.
To make a successful arb I needed to place a bet of 40 quid with Coral.
Except Coral's max bet was £25.
So my arb went mammary glands up.
The difference now is that Ed Milliband isn't a Tory clone, isn't offering machine stamped identikit Tory policies, and that's why the establishment hate him - their candidate narrowly lost. So can Labour win Tory seats? A few probably, but not all. You need to win those to have a landslide majority but let's be honest about it, any party with a vast majority abuses it. It's bad for democracy.
Did David Cameron really say he was the heir to Blair? Or is it one of those myths?
BEFORE THE ELECTION
@MikeSmithson thougt the AIFE vote would scupper UKIP and the 2% they got where they stood was in line with his expectations
AFTER THE RESULTS
@Antifrank says adding a portion of the AIFE score to UKIP's is desperate clutching by a party that won their first ever election and have no need to clutch to anything
Or less than either ?
"Shale debt has almost doubled over the last four years while revenue has gained just 5.6 percent, according to a Bloomberg News analysis of 61 shale drillers. A dozen of those wildcatters are spending at least 10 percent of their sales on interest compared with Exxon Mobil Corp.’s 0.1 percent.
“The list of companies that are financially stressed is considerable,” said Benjamin Dell, managing partner of Kimmeridge Energy, a New York-based alternative asset manager focused on energy. “Not everyone is going to survive. We’ve seen it before.”"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-26/shakeout-threatens-shale-patch-as-frackers-go-for-broke.html
Unless I'm missing something, these figures only work if the net loss of Tory seats to Labour is limited to around a mere handful.
As I've suggested before, such an outcome appears to provide a whole range of attractive betting opportunities on would-be held Tory seats, always assuming Ladbrokes re-introduce their constituency markets at odds akin to those previously on offer.
But it also didn't help that Ed and minders only bought one coffee between the 12 of them - cue for twitter rant.
No ones saying they will win the seat, but not to even try to compete shows a complete lack of ambition and faith in labours message. Maybe there is something in Dan Hodges '35%' theory.
I do think Cameron is pretty pro-Europe at heart, also that he's frustrated with it. Inevitably there may come a point when he really does start to think that 'out' might not be so awful after all. He will certainly need that mindset, and convince others that he does so, in order to stand the smallest chance of getting the breadth and scope of reform needed. I don't really believe that he (or anyone else) can pull that off, but I'm certainly keen to see him try. I'd so much prefer to vote to stay in a radically reformed EU than to vote to leave.
Of course it is very unlikely that Labour will win. The odds reflect that; the only question is whether the odds reflect it sufficiently to make the bet worth a long-shot punt. Certainly it is possible to imagine a scenario in which Labour do win, as Stuart D posted upthread. Strange things happen in by-elections, and the non-Labour vote is going to be very split.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/french-unemployment-reaches-new-record-high-20140528-00950
Why do you vote for these millionaire enemies of the workers?
http://order-order.com/2014/05/29/watch-clegg-shows-ed-how-to-eat-a-bacon-sandwich/
Labour
Winner 59.98 £2.00
£117.95
Bubble ?
"...an opportunity has arisen for the Prime Minister to show he is serious when he says his guiding principle is “nation states wherever possible and Europe only where necessary”. For Britain is currently negotiating with the EU over whether to opt back into dozens of justice and home affairs measures that are being turned into European competencies under the Lisbon Treaty.
We could stay out of them all. That would, after all, tally with the Cameron principle of “nation states wherever possible”. But it seems that instead, the Prime Minister is going to hand control to the EU permanently in 35 areas, the most notable of which is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). It was under this warrant, remember, that Andrew Symeou was held in a Greek prison for four years before being cleared of involvement in a killing outside a nightclub."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10860528/Match-your-words-with-action-David-Cameron.html
Very glad Mr Farage/UKIP is highlighting this. It requires a vote in parliament, and I'm hoping it will not pass.
Labours problem is that it might seem tempting to take their foot off the gas, and if UKIP take it, enjoy the short term embarrassment and panic in the gvt, but if they go backwards it makes UKIP look like the opposition in waiting.
It's no good for Ed to win 250 seats and see UKIP Hoover up loads of Tory targets, because UKIP won't support an Ed premiership, they will support a Dave premiership and an in/out.
2014 Monthly Labour lead averages from YouGov daily polls has declined from 5.74 in January to 2.6 in May to date.
So, yes, most of the seat is a rural Tory heartland, but not all of it, and one of the features of by-elections is that oppositions are normally able to achieve a higher swing in them than at the following general election. So something like a 10% swing to Labour should be reasonably achievable, which would put them just over ten points behind.
With a bit of luck and a following wind an Opposition would normally expect to be able to do enough to cause a few jitters in the Government side. Suppose, for example, that we apply the Corby 2012 by-election swings to the Newark 2010 result. It would give us:
Conservative 38.3% (-15.6)
Labour 32.1% (+9.8)
UKIP 18.1% (+14.3)
Lib Dems 10.5% (-9.5)
Others 1.0% (+1.0)
Interestingly the UKIP increase is almost equal to the Conservative decrease, and similarly with Labour and the Lib Dems, so it's not unreasonable to posit the scenario where UKIP does better in the Newark by-election than at Corby, and that Labour benefits more from squeezing the larger Lib Dem vote in Newark. This could produce the following scenario:
Labour 37.1% (+14.8)
Conservative 33.3% (-20.6)
UKIP 23.1% (+19.3)
Lib Dems 5.5% (-14.5)
Others 1.0% (+1.0)
So if Labour really aren't trying very hard at all in Newark then one can certainly accuse them of a lack of ambition and imagination.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/28/tony-blair-ex-love-loathe-equal-measure-european-elections
But he's a pretty straight kinda guy after all.
Edit - although Maggie didn't pray to God with a moron before slaughtering hundreds of thousands to be fair.
The number of people that believe Blair displays "authenticity" must be in single digits. He is widely accepted as the most spin heavy UK politician for... well, ever.
This is FPP. There is no point wasting resources on unwinnable seats. It really is that simple.
Labour, ahead in the polls slightly, burdened with an unelectable oaf, refusing to believe that swing back will see them defeated.
We just need a Sheffield rally to seal the deal.
The arguments in that piece are also bullshit:
"the idea that the UK could strike a better bargain, negotiating solo with the behemoth economies of China, India, Brazil and the US, rather than leveraging the collective bargaining power of the largest global bloc, is a fiction."
That only makes sense if you're all singing from the same hymn sheet. But us and the French never do. So the collective bargaining power of having a large bloc is more than negated by the fact that half of our table doesn't have our interests at heart.
"Immigration, looked at calmly and over time, has been a huge net benefit to the UK."
Only if you're hand-wringing lefty that thinks Wembley is wonderful for its "diversity". Most of the public recognise that mass unskilled immigration has put huge pressure on house prices, caused a shortage of school places, made good paying work more difficult for the natives, damaged social cohesion and also created a string of problems like gun crime, FGM and home grown terrorism.
These are the same bog standard arguments that are commonly trotted out on here and don't bear scrutiny. Nothing "quality" about them.
That disciples of the party of Churchill and Disraeli have come to this is faintly depressing.
How the Murdoch press reports Newark will be instructive though.
If that trend continued until May 2015 then the Cons would have a 5-6pt lead - possible but not probable?.
But seeing as we have controlled immigration from Africa, how has the FGM problem become so big?
Ed eats a pizza and looks goofy
Ed buys perfume and stops on the way home to eat some chips, and looks goofy
The two Eds in a goofball two for one front page splash
Yvette shows up for the first time in three years and looks earnest
Have ever heard of the concept of cash reserves?
Ed.s going through the motions a little with ex-Labour Ukip voters ... "Yes, we're listening and we understand your pain, but ..."
Listening is OK, but Gordon Listened to Mrs Duffy, and as soon as she was out of earshot ... "She's a bigoted woman."
Probably a step forward to listen but not likely to be too effective on its own. So I suspect it will soon be back to demonisation. Interesting times indeed.
*Paraphrased.
Labour are rolling in union cash and Short money and you're telling us that they're worried about the expense of fighting ONE By Election?
Cost didn't seem to be an issue with the silly ad that backfired.
I predicted the number of Tory seats to within 2 in 1992. It wasn't a surprise victory for the Tories to all of us.... ;-)
I will keep you posted on my thoughts for 2015. For now, I think much depends on quite how disastrously bad the campaign is for Labour. The way the Euros campaign went leads me to think there is now a 25-30% chance it will be catastrophically bad for Labour.