Categories
politicalbetting.com » Page not found
politicalbetting.com » Page not found
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Really??
That cant have been 8/1
I think they have a decent shot at a seat or two.
Thrilling race in Canada which could prove critical for the title. Read my post-race analysis here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/canada-post-race-analysis.html
As mentioned earlier, I've now backed Hamilton at 1.9 with Ladbrokes for the title. I would not advocate this as a single bet, but if you followed my pre-season tip on Rosberg at 16 (Ladbrokes) you can be green either way (or my tip at 24 for Rosberg with Betfair, Hamilton was just over evens last time I checked).
However the numbers targeted will be reduced by the fact that some Conservative MPs in those two counties particularly will not be run against, because they will pledge to vote to leave the EU regardless of any renegotiation secured by David Cameron, if he is still PM, or to vote for a leader who favours withdrawal from the EU if he is not.
Remember the SDP?
26% of the vote in 1983.
Only one clear gain, and that was effectively 'gifted' to them by the Liberals...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27762435
Blatter's claiming questions about Qatar getting the gig are racist.
I refer him to Inigo Montoya:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpZUFEZIAAEfXLw.jpg:large
Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):
Cons 37
Lab 31
UKIP 13
Libs 12
And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):
Cons ~300
Lab ~285
Libs ~35
UKIP ~0
Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.
I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.
Thanet S
Thanet N
Folkestone
Boston
Louth
Walsall N
Dudley N
Stoke N
Stoke S
Rotherham
Hartlepool
Great Grimsby
Great Yarmouth
Camborne
Bognor Regis
Worthing E
Castle Point
Harlow
St Ives
Devon N
Forest of Dean
I've excluded Eastleigh because of the LD's excellent performance there in this year's local elections.
I hare the M3J3 average speed camera with a passion!
Obviously you're listing the best chances for UKIP but it just shows even the best chances are still hard.
YouGov:
Thur night 6, Sun Times 4, Mon night 6
Populus:
Fri 1, Mon 1
I think Populus has on average been more favourable to Con but this is quite a substantial discrepancy.
Closed list D'Hondt in 8-12 member seats? So safe seats are even safer than before, and independent-minded MPs are even less likely to emerge than at present...
An STV-like system is the best, even if not pure STV itself. Smallish constituencies, and voter choice between candidates.
PR^2, for example, would retain the exaggerative qualities of FPTP (overall majority possible in a good year), with no bias, while also delivering the above-mentioned benefits.
They may well have an effect on the outcome of the election but I really don't see them winning seats at all.
Yes but I doubt it, the Euro selection criteria are a good idea how it would go. I'm also entirely unconvinced about multi member constituencies. Having endured the way folk treat 3 member council wards it doesn't incline me to systems where the members will be from different parties.
Why are these scenarios fine, but the idea of people voting on a list of candidates put up by party hacks, rather than a single candidate put up by party hacks, completely beyond the pale?
But they're not profoundly undemocratic.
The most irrational idea of all is that God doesn't exist because it's not possible to prove or measure his existence -what luddite nonsense is this? We used to believe that the earth was flat, and that illnesses were caused by the four humours. Then we discovered the world of cells and microbes, then atoms etc. The idea that the creator of heaven and earth can't be there because our current scientific tools cannot detect him is totally anti-scientific -in fact it's blind faith.
Birmingham Yardley
Boston & Skegness
Bromsgrove
Cambourne & Redruth
Cannock Chase
Castle Point
Dover
Dudley North
Folkestone & Hythe
Great Yarmouth
Great Grimsby
Hx and Upminster
Halesown & Rowley Regis
Newcastle Under Lyme
Plymouth Moor View
S Bas & E Thurrock
Staffordshire Moorlands
Stoke on Trent South
Telford
Thanet North
Thanet South
Thurrock
Walsall North
Walsall South
West Bromwich West
Wolverhampton NE
So we look at SDP performance in 1983.
4 defectors held on (no MP has defected to UKIP so far, so that rules out that option...)
1 by-election gain held (Oh dear, UKIP don't seem to 'do' by-elections, do they?...)
1 other gain (a seat that had been Liberal for most of the previous century. Any friendly party ready to 'donate' a seat to UKIP? Didn't think so...)
I differ from blackburn63 on this. I think UKIP will not run in quite a few seats, perhaps as many as 50, perhaps even more, if the sitting Conservative MPs give pledges that help their overall strategy, and to undermine DC's credibility. They will also not run in a few token Labour seats, such as Kate Hoey's. But they will draw the terms in such a way that they will not generally be prevented from contesting those seats they really think they have a chance of winning. The only other limiting factor on this approach will be their desire to secure a large national vote share, which could undermine the legitimacy of the next GE along the lines suggested by @ToryJIm. A crisis of legitimacy for the current system is, after all, a key anti-establishment goal. But a real grip on the Tory Party, and/or on the EU referendum, is the paramount purpose.
Any STV based system is simply to complicated for the average voter to be of any use - whatever the merits of a system, if 80%+ of voters don't understand it (I suspect this is a conservative estimate for STV), it is not fit for purpose.
I like the idea of PR^2, but I think there is as much chance of a pig flying to the moon as of it being adopted as the UK's voting system.
But a system like the Euro elections is not democratic. It's an oligarchy with a fig leaf of a popular vote. For instance, had Helmer won and stepped down as MEP he would gave been automatically replaced by UKIPs first reserve. That's just wrong.
It was invented by a schoolteacher, for schoolkids, and they seemed to understand it...
80% of people probably don't understand any voting system, at the deep mathematical level. And that goes for FPTP too...
However FPTP can throw up massive shock results such as Galloway, in closed list systems candidate 1 of the top parties are guaranteed to win despite any lack of merit or effort and those at the bottom can be a superb candidate and work very hard and know they'll get nowhere. That to me is just odd, the real issue is the electorates strange decision to favour ideologically narrower parties and then deprecate the inevitable outcome.
If the LDs are necessary for a coalition, then they might well demand it as a condition, but then, if they have a very bad result in 2015, perhaps they'll learn to love FPTP too.
Its the only place in the world where UKIP havent been seen to be doing very well recently, despite never having done better
UKIP are also a party that once were nice and cuddly, but have now turned mean and nasty
Theyre basically all agreeing w Dan Hodges
Imagine a scientist growing a virus in a test tube. He has the power of life and death, food or bleach. He has created the virus's world, nurtured it and can destroy it at a whim. Should the virus worship him?
Whether god exists or not the evidence that he cares at all about us is non existent and the evidence of indifference at best is overwhelming. Why would we worship such a being even if it did exist?
This is the one place where people are used to looking at numbers and trends. Some of the numbers and trends aren't immediately obvious to the casual observer.
Anything that increases the power of the parties and the whips is a bad thing IMO.
And we've tipped UKIP a number of times over the last year or so.
Isam, you're consistently ignoring the difference between UKIP not doing well, and UKIP not doing as well as expected. Take Newark, the hyping up of the people's army, possible victory, Farage saying late on he expected to be within what, 2-3 thousand votes. And ending up 7 thousand behind.
You set the bar that high you're going to get a backlash when you fail to meet it.
When that party gains 340 council seats in 2 years, the others have to care.
What is your real reason for supporting FPTP over open lists?
Your certainty suggests you know more than I. But if you do, let me ask: which strategy do you think is most threatening to the Tories? Or is your view based on the ungovernable nature of UKIP associations? I would be surprised to see a repeat of Wells for example. UKIP are clearer now about what precisely they can achieve in the next GE, and how to do so, compared to 2010.
The reason list systems are crap is easy.
That small number of us not in a political party don't want your list of has beens foisted on us. If for example I wanted to vote conservative but I want one of the mp's on the list but not the other to get in what the hell do I do?
If I vote conservative I run the risk of electing a tory version of lembit Opik if I don't vote tory I am not getting my vote counted (*I used tory in this example but it could of been any of the parties)
Answer nothing I can do.
Before you suggest it ...NO the answer is not join a political party the majority of us prefer to float around thank you very much.
The other problem with all PR systems is they promote coalitions. This allows the politicians to have fun horse trading their manifesto promises away post election and I basically have no idea what I am voting for.
If I support a party because of policy A,B, and C but don't like policy D and E but am prepared to hold my nose to get (a hope of) A,B, and C implemented then when the coalition comes in and I find the party has decided to drop A,B,and C to go into a coalition but they have been promised that they can implement D and E not only has my vote been wasted but it has been suborned into a vote for things I did not want.
I am sure some Lib dems might agree on that one. In short I want nothing to do with anything that makes a coalition more likely and if I had my way we would run the damn election again until we got a majority government
Fantasy Island
Possible? Yes, sure, especially with a high-profile candidate like Farage in the right seat. But no-one should kid themselves that it's easy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27757991
It is a rejection of a theory (and the placing of the burden of proof on the asserter) rather than a theory in itself (obviously there are many subsets within atheism who would agree, but not all).
I can also spot bias a mile off, and this is the place for it
"Vote for me, I am compliant lobby fodder" may not garner quite the support you imagine.
Parliamentary executives are 70% self-whipping in any extent. Anyone hoping to penetrate the front benches isn't going to be inclined to rebel even if the thumbscrewer in chief is abolished.
There hasnt been a by election in this parliament where UKIP had any history of doing well in any sense... that they keep getting decent seconds is encouraging.
I made a list over a year ago of seats where UKIP could expect to do ok, I published it on here. At the locals and Euros they did very well in those seats. If they fail in one of those in an election, fair enough. But to judge them by South Shields, Wythenshawe, or Newark is utterly ridiculous, and makes people look very foolish