Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes report “surge of money on UKIP” in Newark and no
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes report “surge of money on UKIP” in Newark and no CON bets
There was also a lot of local interest in the 25/1 quoted for The Bus Pass Elvis Party to finish ahead of the Liberal Democrats. One Labour MP, who must remain nameless, popped into the Market Square bookies to have £10 on what would be a humiliating outcome for Nick Clegg.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It isn't.
twitter.com/RogerHelmerMEP/status/473563640168468482
What represents a surge, how many punters and how much ?
I'm minded to cast PBers collective memory on the manipulation of betting markets to achieve some form of momentum - sometimes known here but used extensively in US political markets.
Punters beware.
Hang on sec - didn't the other Newark constituency poll show a much closer result? With only 2 polls, one or other might be an outlier and it is difficult to know for sure. Ideally we would need a few more polls to be more confident of the result.
Betting numbers can indicate a lot of things besides odds. Confidence in a given event occurring, or not, inside information, that one side has wealthier or more zealous supporters, that one side (or both) is seeking to manipulate public opinion so that better odds for them lead to a better reality.
Ashcrofts Marginals poll and Newark poll are completely inconsistent with his latest national poll, and it's way out of line in terms of Con VI with all the other pollsters.
Early on I took the view that a number of people who would normally vote Labour might vote UKIP, after all tactical voting is a Labour specialty is it not?
I'm with Jack W.
Someone is spinning a line...
GO set a clear fiscal policy in 2010.
The primary fiscal mandate required the government :
to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) – the amount the Government has to borrow to finance non-investment spending, adjusted for the state of the economy – five years ahead.
The EFO has concluded that the government has consistently complied with this mandate and in its most recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook (EFO) concluded:
We [the OBR] now forecast the surplus in 2018-19 to be 1.5 per cent of GDP
Osborne also set a secondary target:
for public sector net debt (PSND [ex]) to be falling as a share of GDP in 2015-16.
Unlike the primary mandate, this is a single event which can only be measured at the end of the 2015-16 fiscal year. The OBR therefore makes forecasts of whether the government is likely to meet the secondary target. Up to date the forecasts have shown a miss but by narrowing amounts as time has progressed.
The current forecast is as follows
We now expect PSND to peak at 78.7 per cent of GDP in 2015-16, to fall by a small margin in 2016-17 and then to fall more rapidly to 74.2 per cent of GDP by 2018-19. Debt as a share of GDP is lower in each year of our forecast than in December, reflecting lower borrowing and upward revisions to our nominal GDP forecast.
So it is touch and go whether GO will meet the secondary target in year five or year six from 2010.
Everything is about to be turned upside down by the changes being introduced to public finances reporting due to the requirement for the government to introduce in September of this year the changes to GDP and debt/deficit measurement required by ESA 2010.
Even setting aside the proposed changes, and with the assumption that sales of the government's remaining stake in Lloyds Bank Group is likely to be completed by the end of 2015-16, there is a very strong probabilitiy that Osborne will meet his secondary target in a final run at the tape.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/newark/
About another 6 or seven needed, and given the nature of by elections and the circumstances of this one......
Remember Newbury, Christchurch and the like.
However, I think Ashcrofts GE polling is as wonky as Ed Miliband. So I'm going with the by election polls.
As Pulpie correctly points out Shadsy is filling his boots.
FORWARD IMF'S LAGARDE AS EU COMMISSION CHIEF-SOURCES
Betfair punters, on the other hand, don't seem convinced. Given that by-elections do quite often throw up surprises, I think I'd rather be on the 10.0 UKIP than the 1.09 Con available at Betfair at the moment. But probably a Con hold.
» show previous quotes
Exactly. Labour proposed the path of deficit reduction we have experienced over the last few years during the 2010 election campaign, and Osborne et al derided them as deficit deniers who would cause a Greek-style loss of confidence in the ability of the UK to pay its debts.
Osborne has either been very lucky in the mild reaction of the markets to the continuing size of the deficit, or he has been successful in pulling off one of the most amazing confidence tricks in the history of economics.
Whichever is the case it's a very long way from what was promised by Cameron and Osborne in the 2010 election campaign.
So would you prefer to be in France, or Spain's or Portugals position?
It really annoys me all these commentators, bloggers etc who think they are so brilliant and the government are so bad. This government has done a remarkable job given the worlds economic position and their inheritance. Just look at how brilliant British companies are doing and how this country is seen as a great place to invest. The UK economy is now flying, unemployment is incredibly low compared to our neighbors, public services are carrying on normally despite the government reducing the workforce by over a million, crime is falling and yet the Government are considered rubbish and people on here saying they voted Tory all their life but will never do again. It staggers me. What Nirvana have they been hoping for. A perverse side of me wants UKIP to actually win the next GE. Good old Nigel wouldn't be able to oppose everything like he does at the EU Parliament and pop down the pub for a pint. It would show them up for what they are.
However, I think Ashcrofts GE polling is suspect given the ridiculous movement over 3 weeks, so I am backing his Newark poll, and expect a Tory hold.
Edit: perhaps 5,000 is a bit high with a low turnout. More like 3-4,000.
Interest payments are now running at about £1bn per week and increasing, they are, I think, now the third largest item in government expenditure (after the NHS and Welfare).
However, if we all talk about initials and acronyms and percentages we can pretend that the country is not broke, that Osborne is a good chancellor and this nonsense can go on for ever.
Twitter
Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak 6m
Now it appears Merkel has asked France if it would allow Lagarde to be put forward as Commission Pres - would Hollande allow it?
That said: from what I hear, M. Hollande hates Mme Lagarde more than Brown hated Blair. This may simply be Merkel tweaking Hollande's tail, and making it look like he's the one blocking an appointment for personal reasons.
@Perdix
I appreciate that arguing on the Internets is probably a working definition of 'futile', but I think:
‘though this government has had to make some difficult decisions, we are making progress. We’re paying down Britain’s debts.’
is somewhat more damning than a mere slip of the tongue. It's not just a single instance of mispokery.
In terms of debt servicing costs, they're forecast (per HMG's budget report 2014) to rise to £59 billion in 2015-16. That's more than Education, considerably more than Defence and more than half of the NHS budget.
I should point out that I'm not a follower of the blessed St Nigel; just that I no longer consider myself a Conservative.
Or, at least, if the UK is broke then so are:
* The USA
* China
* Japan
and
* Germany
(Obviously, France, etc., are all bust too, but that goes without saying.)
The UK has twice paid down the debt from more than 2x GDP. It is currently at slightly less than half that level.
If GDP growth is 2%, inflation is 2%, and the government deficit is 3% of GDP, then debt-to-GDP will start declining, albeit modestly.
As a percentage of GDP, interest payments have been above the current level for almost all of the post-war period.
Yes, Dave has a close interest in banking. They would get on like a house on fire, and little Ozzie will be beside himself with glee
"IMF’s Lagarde tells the banking sector what’s what"
http://blogs.blouinnews.com/blouinbeatbusiness/2014/05/27/imfs-lagarde-tells-the-banking-sector-whats-what/
A) Forget about Darling being 100Bn out in 2008 - a single year
From @isabelhardman: Tories accidentally leak campaign database http://bit.ly/1mOw3fW
Think you might be onto something with the Newark town/country split
I think this betting surge is probably because UKIP are outperforming in a) Newark proper and b) Amongst Men.
Given the bookies is in Newark itself, and men gamble more than women (I think ?) this could be the reason...
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 2h
Who would have thought in 2010 when the Tories entered coalition that they would have to fight hard to hold a 16k majority in a by-election
HMG is NOT borrowing "more than ever". The following table sets out HMG's Net Financing Requirement for each of the five fiscal years of this Parliament. Years 1-4 are outturns and the current year are plans. This shows new borrowing falling in nominal terms from around £120 bn to £80 bn over the five years, which is one way of justifying claims that the "deficit has been reduced by a third" although this is strictly not a measure of the deficit but actual net borrowing from the wholesale international markets.
Any new net borrowing will increase debt but not necessarily the pro-rata cost of borrowing. Borrowing more now at lowest market interest rates and extending the average maturity of gilts on issue will lower interest servicing costs. The above figures, for example, include £20 bn of 'unused' surplus borrowing in 2013-14 carried forward to the current year.
Gilt Redemptions are the amount of debt which is scheduled to be "rolled over" in each year, i.e. previously issued gilts maturing.
Finally as GDP has risen across the five year term, then, in real terms, new borrowing is falling much more rapidly than in nominal terms.
I'm sorry my irony filter has just exploded.
In simple terms Cameron and Osborne promised to cuterase the deficit by 2015. This they will fail to do. The argument of many of their defenders appears to be that to have attempted to do so would have been to cut "too far and too fast". LOL
That we are even considering the possibility that the Conservatives might win their first by-election whilst in power since 1989 might cause you to cut the hyperbole.
Net borrowing is declining slowly, but not as quickly as Redemptions are increasing, and so the net financing requirement is forecast to be higher this year than last year.
http://app.musicradio.com/lbclondon/on-air/player/
To put it another way, what ACTION did he get wrong? Forget economists' forecasts, focus on actual measures. After all:
"An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today." Laurence J. Peter
The sale of RBS would cover up a substantial hole, just as long as any putative investors haven't read "Shredded". (required reading one would have thought)
Why haven't England Mankaded these Sri Lankans yet? My understanding was that there was nothing the batsman could possibly do to prevent it.
Perhaps he wants the money back he wasted on Cameron and Osborne?
Cameron and Osborne did not promise to "erase the deficit by 2015". Produce any documentary or recorded evidence to support that claim.
The Treasury and the DMO publish an Annual Debt Management report each year which sets out four year "Illustrative Financing Projections" with prominent notes emphasising these are not forecasts or targets. These figures are however the nearest we can get to what official borrowing expectations were in 2010. Here are the projections vs. known outcomes. It is obvious from these figures that Osborne's original 2010 projections have turned out to be broadly accurate. The cumulative underrun of £68 bn is in the circumstances quite remarkable.
I am preparing some figures to illustrate this effect which (in due course) I will post on PB.
1. Was Osborne right to cut the deficit at a slow and measured pace, as advocated by the Labour front bench, and contrary to his election campaign rhetoric?
2. Was there anything he might have done differently to meet his original deficit reduction timetable, that would not have had awful economic consequences - as warned about by the Labour front bench.
Personally, my answers to the two questions are as follows:
1. No, as Osborne and Cameron rightly pointed out in 2009-10, to cut the deficit too slowly is to push the burden of paying it off onto future generations and is immoral. It is also dangerous in the short-term as it leaves you with no room to manoeuvre in reaction to events - such as any correction to the Chinese economy.
2. The property-owning upper middle classes have been mollycoddled by the Coalition. All of the OBR distributional analyses show that it is the 2nd richest 10% of the population that has done best out of Osborne's budgets. Osborne could and should have introduced some sort of tax on property - a land value tax of some sort - to raise revenue from this part of the population, reduce the deficit and reduce future interest payments.
Furthermore, I think it would have been justified and good politics to have reversed Brown's 2p cut in the basic rate of income tax, a cut that was introduced when his budget was already in deficit, to tie the need for the nation to tighten its belt firmly onto the record of the past Labour government, and to further front-load the pain of reducing the deficit - instead of apparently delaying that necessity to the next Parliament now.
As an aside, Nick Clegg tells people that it was the Eurozone crisis that convinced him of the need to join the Coalition in the national interest. Now you pretend that the Eurozone crisis was unexpected at the time of Osborne's emergency budget, and blew him off course?
That is poppycock. It was clear from the moment the OBR published its initial forecasts that they were based on a fantasy of rapidly expanding exports and rapidly increasing private sector debt. It was pointed out at the time. It was always a con trick.
Capital spending will be £51bn next year, then £49bn, then £46bn and £47bn in 2014-15 – about £2bn a year higher than set out in the budget.
Total public expenditure, which includes debt interest payments, will be £702bn next year, then £713bn, £724bn and £740bn, bringing real terms public spending to the same level as 2008.
Debt interest payments will be lower by £1bn in 2012, £1.8bn in 2013 and £3bn in 2014, a total of £5bn lower over the course of the spending review period
How has he done against his own targets as stated in Oct 2010.
Janan Ganesh @JananGanesh 5h
Quality of govt = quantity of legislation it passed? Can't believe Labour think this ad is a good idea. pic.twitter.com/NdgXg8wUmY
More generally, you don't have to use hindsight. The OBR have very specifically explained where their forecasts went wrong in 2011/2012:
http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/forecast-evaluation-report-october-2012/
Can't do the figures now but will answer in next couple of days.
Without the stats in front of me and from memory, there is not going to be a big variance. CapEx will need special one-offs stripping out (e.g. the effect of the Royal Mail pensions transaction on ONS's net investment figures), but I would not be suprised to see the 2010 figures overestimating outcomes.
George has undoubtedly used non-recurring special transactions to keep the public finances under control and much is obscured by National Accounting convention but the story is of 'special transactions' becoming less significant to outcomes as the term has progressed. This is shown by the current year's figures being almost 'clean'!
What is genuinely concerning is that merely stunning has not been nearly good enough given the absolutely desperate straits we were in. The deficit inherited was the equivalent of fighting a major war and the way our economy and government spending had been shaped (particularly with in work benefits) meant that our structural deficit was extremely difficult to cope with. This is why very rapid growth in recent times is having such a modest effect.
Unfortunately the Brown catastrophe will blight all of our childrens' lives and most of their children in turn. More and more of our tax resources will go to interest payments for a long time to come. This will make the social costs of an ever aging and more infirm population very difficult to deal with.
How do we get out of this mess? Well firstly, and most importantly, we do not elect a Labour government until everyone and anyone responsible for the catastrophe has left the scene. Secondly we hope and pray that we have entered a very, very long period of stable growth that gives us a chance of rebalancing our economy towards some form of sustainability.
I think Osborne has done almost all that could be done and delivered an optimum outcome given the choices. I am just far from persuaded it is going to be enough.
Really? Well in that case they'd be well advised to ignore the Magic Sign's odds and head off instead to Betfair where UKIP's current price is 9.6 = 8.17/1 net of commission.
Perhaps Mike could give anyone who actually guessed such a small probability number some sort of forum tag, or a special pot-of-jam image.
My guess - Tories by 777.
(I've backed UKIP though. Not entirely happy that it was wise)
However, do punters nationwide or abroad no better than the locals ?
There was also a late rush towards Galloway in Bradford. The bookies caught on a bit late.
cubed
Osborne es merda
Even so, it still looks like a monumental miss by Osborne.
A bit later on in the manifesto we find this gem of a heading: "Urgent action to reduce debt".
Now perhaps you can argue that this is "reduce debt compared to the vast mountain that Balls and Brown would have created", but given the vast increase in the size of the national debt during this Parliament they do now look like an odd choice of words.
Edit: Oh, and did they promise to safeguard the credit rating? Oops.
What is true is that in some forms of gambling males are the majority and in others female are.
An example of a female majority is online fruit machines for example where stats I have seen clearly show a leaning towards the female gender.
However I would suspect that men are certainly the majority of visitors to betting shops
Excellent answer , Richard. Can all future Chancellors use the same excuse ?
Somehow, I notice you do not give Darling the same room for manouvre despite the recession which virtually the entire world [ certainly the western world ] went into.
Was Brown and Darling also responsible for the collapse of Lehmann Bros. , bailing out Gen Motors, AIG, Citibank etc. etc. ?