I always find it fascinating listening to the reasons and strategies why other people bet the way they do, because if they’re successful, it is will be wise to replicate their approach in the future, if they’re not successful, you know what not to do. Although most of us were betting on a more modest level of stakes. I also found his background and his motivations interesting as well.
Comments
"Listen to the interview with the man with balls the size of elephants"
No other candidate was mentioned.
Iirc you preferred Patrick Mercer over David Cameron.
Whatever happened to Mercer?
*Innocent Face*
Weigh in on Purple before the price drops.
Edit. Oh and now perhaps you might like to reply to the point I made. Or is that beyond you? No good for anything but silly quips perhaps?
With all the discussion about EVEL I thought it would be interesting to see what Ed Miliband has to do to win England. Currently the situation is as follows:
London: 28 Con, 38 Labour, 7 LD
SE: 74 Con, 4 Lab, 3 LD, 1 Green, 1 Indie (Hancock), 1 Speaker
SW: 36 Con, 4 Lab, 15 LD
Eastern: 51 Con, 2 Lab, 4 LD, 1 vacant (Clacton)
E Midlands: 30 Con, 16 Lab
W Midlands: 33 Con, 24 Lab, 2 LD
Yorks: 19 Con, 31 Lab, 3 LD, 1 Respect
NW: 22 Con, 46 Lab, 6 LD, 1 vacant
NE 2 Con, 25 Lab, 2 LD
TOTAL 295 Con, 190 Lab, 42 LD, 1 Green, 1 Indie, 1 Respect, 1 Speaker, 2 Vacant (to compare at the election it was TOTAL 297 Con, 191 Lab, 43 LD, 1 Green, 1 Speaker)
There are 533 seats in England so 267 are needed for a majority.
Con currently have a majority of 28 in England
Looking at Labour target seats on Anthony Wells http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/ and assuming Lab win in Heywood and Middleton:
To win a majority of 1 in the UK, Labour need to gain 68 seats. Seat number 68 on the list above is Norwich North with a majority of 3,901
To win a majority of 1 in England, Labour need to gain 77 seats. Excluding 12 higher placed Welsh and Scottish targets, seat number 89 on the list above is Battersea with a majority of 5,977
Tough but not impossible. Although at the bottom of the list I would say that LD-Lab switchers won't be enough in most seats and some direct Lab-Con switchers will also be needed (or very high UKIP-Con)
So what did you decide? Was it something like "First, that's an extremely obvious strawman, he said that UKIP was helping Labour, not that Carswell specifically was helping Labour. Second, since there's been a strong pattern of UKIP taking more votes from the Conservatives than Labour, anything giving UKIP additional exposure and viability is likely to split the Conservatives' vote more than it does Labour's, which in an FPTP system will help Labour get more seats where UKIP doesn't win"?
To be fair I think the people queing up to take 1/10 on Labour think they're getting value because the only form up are 1/14... A lot of money on betfair is people looking at oddschecker and trying to nick a tick without knowing what the real price should be
And given that the only reason that UKIP are winning support from the Tories is because of the idiotic stance Cameron is taking on important issues I think you would be better of laying the blame at the feet of the man doing the real damage to the Tories - their own leader.
Or are you one of those who thinks that people should support the Tories simply because they are Tories irrespective of their actual policies? There seems to be a lot of that about at the moment.
Aka rocking horse shit
I said on the last thread, ukip to get over five seats is available to lay for £800 at less than 5/2 on betfair
Ladbrokes are 5/2 five or more
So a better price, and less seats to get in order to win
Hopes False Flag doesnt make him marry his Cat
Why would he say that if he meant "which is fitting given how he personally is helping Labour"?
As for the second and third paragraphs: ah! Well now we actually seem to be in agreement. We both agree that UKIP is helping Labour. It's just that you don't see that as a reason not to support UKIP, and you believe that UKIP is a problem of the Tories' own making. Fine, that's a stance I can respect!
But Socrates' question was "how Carswell is helping Labour". And since you and I presumably agree that Carswell- by giving UKIP exposure and the sense of viability- IS helping UKIP, and since we apparently agree that UKIP- by splitting Conservative votes- IS helping Labour, it seems that you and I should also agree that the answer to Socrates' question is extremely obvious!
Old Trafford Test draws nailed on excepted.
Through these measures and others the number of properties worth £2m plus now down to 7,000. mansion tax raised now overall < £250m.
Market at top end also plummets and properties worth less.... Some rich folk also re-locate in view of the socialist Govt that has moved in. The lost income tax and spending taxes etc > £2bn per year. Its called the Hollande tax effect.
On the substantive point, do you think defecting to UKIP, and forcing a by-election a week after the Tory conference, when the Tories wanted the focus to be solely on the economy and Labour's lack of a referendum helps the Tories and hinders Labour?
In any case we always look to Tories as the gold standard of how to take defeat.
Politics imported from Pakistan fuelled sex abuse cover up by Simon Danczuk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11066646/Rotherham-politics-imported-from-Pakistan-fuelled-sex-abuse-cover-up-MP.html
Even our police are blinded by liberal dogma by Simon Danczuk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736219/Even-police-blinded-liberal-dogma-writes-SIMON-DANCZUK.html
Heads must roll over Rotherham abuse scandal by Simon Danczuk
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/103720/simon_danczuk_heads_must_roll_over_rotherham_abuse_scandal.html
He's against gay marriage because it encourages homophobia (not sure of his position on cat marrying).
On the Newark argument on the last thread - I was talking to someone here who was heavily involved in that by-election, and he said both sides were right. The Tories were attracting a good many potential Labour anti-UKIP switchers, but in the final days a poll appeared which showed the Tories winning anyway, and they think the switchers mostly, though not all, then reverted. I've no idea whether he's right, and I'm a bit dubious whether a poll would really change that many minds, but he didn't have any apparent reason to make it up.
Last time round was Lab 36%, LD 34%, Con 18%, National Front 5%, UKIP 4%, Islam Zinda Baad 1%, Indie 1%
I think at any time Carswell's defection would have been greeted with exactly the same reaction and that the Tories like yourself would have found some reason why it was a terrible time to have done it. In the end he was right to defect and also to resign his seat and fight the by-election.
As I have already said the real person helping Labour is Cameron. As long as he alienates so much of his natural support he is bound to struggle even against an opposition as poor as the current one.
When it comes to defeat my comments will reference history, as it always does.
Perhaps I'll do a thread comparing David Cameron to Edward Longshanks, although Cameron, unlike old Longshanks hasn't yet managed to civilise the Welsh.
Just be grateful Labour has not yet offered a referendum on EU membership. If that happens then UKIP will be the least of your worries.
To the extent that leaders influence voting intention, Cameron is significantly pulling up Conservative support that would be way, way, way lower without him.
Some in Lab cling to 'not for foreseeable future' line on UK + euro. But Balls notably firm today: "I'd never join the euro"
Andrew Picken @andrewpicken1 26 mins
Labour MP Simon Danczuk: “How do you explain to people in Rochdale that they are subsidising people in Raith?” Dancing. Streets. etc
Still, some of London Labour seem to know what's happening in SLABland.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 28 mins
Margaret Hodge: "Scottish Labour Party have just stopped talking to people."
Edit: Or your suggestion to me, that as a Muslim I should choose which side I am.
A Cameron led Conservative Party wins far more.
That's not to say a Cameron led Conservative Party won't lose - the odds are that it will. But it will perform far better than a "traditional Conservative Party".
You are confusing what you personally want with what the electorate wants.
You don't have to trust me - ask the head of any major polling company and they will all say the same thing.
The Conservatives best chance of winning is to be led by Cameron with everyone on the right-wing of the Party keeping shut up.
Just as Labour performed best (by miles) led by Blair with everyone on the left-wing of the Party keeping shut up.
My Conference Speech! This really is just the beginning for #UKIP. Let's go forward to victory #UKIPConf http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnsm-2leR1w …
But it's certainly not a UKIP-specific thing, just happened to be the example that annoyed me enough this time around
Then again ex labour kippers don't seem to get as much stick as ex Tories
@compouter2 I said a while ago I thought Danczuk may defect to ukip... He writes for breitbart for one thing!
I am not wedded to UKIP at all. I have said on here often enough that I dislike all parties and I am kind of hanging on by my fingernails as far as the socially anti-liberal direction of travel UKIP is taking at the moment. Under a different leader and with different policies I may well return to the Tories. But not now and not with Cameron in charge.
Cameron was facing one of the most unpopular government's in history which had presided over the greatest economic crash in several lifetimes. He still failed to win a majority.
The move to the centre and castigation of many of his own supporters - he didn't just let them go, he actively drove them out - cost Cameron his majority in 2010. He has learnt nothing since then.
Conservative Party stalwart and Tewkesbury ex-Mayor defects to UKIP.
@UKIP #UKIP
http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/Conservative-Graham-Dawson-defects-UKIP/story-22963198-detail/story.html#ixzz3E45YmVE1 …
"Cameron is significantly pulling up Conservative support that would be way, way, way lower without him."
Would it? Would it really? I am far from convinced.
He is apparently more popular than his party according to some polls but how much does that actually affect voting intention (Miliband is less popular than his but Labour is still ahead in the polls). I suspect that the Conservatives are are close to their core vote and it doesn't matter who is in charge of them, the tribalists are always going to vote for their tribe. Unless that tribe's leader goes out of his way to piss them off and that, perhaps, has been Cameron's biggest contribution to the Conservative Party - he has shrunk the tribe.
Mind you, nobody should take me seriously when I talk about Cameron as I am not an objective observer. I can't stand the fellow and never could. Smug, shallow, ignorant and lazy were my first impressions and he hasn't done anything to change my mind.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/the-simple-and-shocking-secret-to-the-working-class-vote/
LAB - 35% (-1)
CON - 33% (+2)
UKIP - 14% (-2)
LDEM - 7% (=)
GRN - 5% (=)
Populus same as last Monday.
Ashcroft bouncing around like a kangaroo on speed as usual.
It has always been thus.
22/09/2014 21:42
DAILY EXPRESS FRONT PAGE: "Inheritance tax will be abolished" #skypapers pic.twitter.com/KjEIsJPoqz