I understand that finch beaks may change, I understand inheritance. No one disagrees.
But I understand you to say evolution explains everything and there is no room for soft sentiment. In mechanist evolution nature red in tooth and claw should be the way of life. It doesn't say "you shall not kill" or "do not covet your neighbour's wife", quite the reverse. Yet in both human and animal populations the softer rules are strictly observed.
I come from a race with very thick lips, any ideas of the evolutionary driver - any at all? Perhaps my ancesters could handle bigger cups and gained a competitive advantage? Our noses are a bit big too - oh I know this one, our noses could better filter sand out in the desert. Though my race doesn't come from a desert clime, I am prepared.
Mr. Me, quite so, and that's why reducing the deficit quickly, and then running surpluses, is so important.
Remember how much Labour loved Keynes due to his support for maximum borrowing and spending in a downturn/recession? If memory serves, he advocated minimal spending and running a surplus in a growing economy. Suddenly, Labour don't love him anymore.
Labour has abandoned Keynesianism, not unlike its pledge for a free owl.
I understand that finch beaks may change, I understand inheritance. No one disagrees.
But I understand you to say evolution explains everything and there is no room for soft sentiment. In mechanist evolution nature red in tooth and claw should be the way of life. It doesn't say "you shall not kill" or "do not covet your neighbour's wife", quite the reverse. Yet in both human and animal populations the softer rules are strictly observed.
I come from a race with very thick lips, any ideas of the evolutionary driver - any at all? Perhaps my ancesters could handle bigger cups and gained a competitive advantage? Our noses are a bit big too - oh I know this one, our noses could better filter sand out in the desert. Though my race doesn't come from a desert clime, I am prepared.
You really don't know what evolution is about.
I suggest that you stop now before you make yourself look even more foolish.
Mr. Me, quite so, and that's why reducing the deficit quickly, and then running surpluses, is so important.
Remember how much Labour loved Keynes due to his support for maximum borrowing and spending in a downturn/recession? If memory serves, he advocated minimal spending and running a surplus in a growing economy. Suddenly, Labour don't love him anymore.
Labour has abandoned Keynesianism, not unlike its pledge for a free owl.
Owls are only available to people called Gareth.
Excellent. I think I'll call mine Hooty
There's a sting in the the tail.
Miliband wants to introduce an additional tax on bird boxes worth more than £20.
Mr. Taffys, if the Conservatives, either in coalition or solo, form the next government I hope they take some lessons from this term to heart and make big cuts early. It'd not only be better economically, it'd be better for them electorally as well.
I was really replying to oxfordsimon - who believes the theory of evolution should overrule Christian belief. Very few people of any persuasion think the earth was created 6000 years ago, the comment was made only to devalue Christians. The theory of evolution led to staggering numbers of deaths in the last century, Christianity not so much.
Of course the fact of evolution should overrule Christian belief.
And how on earth did the scientific breakthrough that showed evolution was at the heart of the development of life on this planet lead to a "staggering number of deaths"?
You are clearly a fool and/or a troll.
Very few Christians don't accept evolution.
Darwin explains how. Faith explains why.
Two different questions, two different answers.
Faith cannot explain anything. It is an irrational position where you accept the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence and use the existence of that 'being' as the basis for a belief system.
There is no question that can ever be answered by Faith.
Lots of questions can be answered by Faith - if you happen to have Faith. That's what's so powerful about it.
Of course, they won't be answered to the satisfaction of a person who does not share that Faith, but just because you don't have Faith in an organised religion/spirituality way doesn't mean that you don't have some sort of Faith of your own.
For example, I entirely lack Faith in a creator God. However, I'm aware that I have Faith in what you might call a common humanity - that is that everyone can be reasonable and get along. It just might take a bit of work to sort out the details.
I can find fragments of evidence that support my Faith, and there are a variety of events that challenge my Faith, but in the end I have come to accept that I can't prove it, and that no-one else can disprove it, and so it is simply an article of Faith.
You probably also have such a Faith of your own, even if you don't recognise what it is that you believe in, and even if it doesn't match what you think of as a Faith. Deep down there will be something that you believe, regardless of the evidence that is available.
Week from hell,labour went from 5 to 7 % ahead in latest poll.
Even Black Wednesday took some weeks to filter through fully. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997 Quite amazing to think a month after the event there was still one poll showing the two parties neck and neck, and yet that single event finished the Conservatives for a generation. Look at what happened next in that link.
The meme is cast.
Miliband is useless and they won't win.
Labour ought to get some kind of temporary boost from conference week.
There was no more disastrous conference than the Conservatives' in 2003, yet Yougov bizarrely put them 5% ahead in a poll taken straight afterwards.
I agree. They should and normally would. However, the pounding Miliband is taking may soon put a dent in his Fotherington Thomas soundbiting of the NHS and from there, next week, it will start sliding. I suspect Labour may not re-emerge from their slump until the spring.
If I were a Labour supporter I'd be terribly depressed.
..The SNP are now favourites to win Argyll & Bute, a seat in which they actually came fourth last time. We also now make them favourites to turn over Danny Alexander’s sizeable majority in Inverness. He could be the highest profile cabinet casualty in 2015.'
I looked at the website and saw the SNP percentage chances of winning Inverness and the others mentioned was less than 50%, so although they may be favourite to win they are less likely to win than to not win.
Angus SNP 8.7 84.28% Perth & Perthshire North SNP 9.1 82.73% Banff & Buchan SNP 10.5 83.59% Moray SNP 13.6 83.59% Dundee East SNP 4.5 80.78% Na h-Eileanan an Iar SNP 12.8 75.44% Gordon Lib-Dem 13.8 44.92% Argyll & Bute Lib-Dem 7.6 42.56% Inverness Lib-Dem 18.6 39.95% Ochil & Perthshire South Labour 10.3 38.37%
I make the overround just under 102%. Since the 0/5% and >25% options are very unlikely he is effectively betting overbroke - by nearly 20% on my figures.
What's more, I'd be prepared to chance my arm a bit and take out the 5/10% and 20/25% option and zero in on the 10/20% range. He's effectively offering even money. Common sense suggests it should be odds on - maybe as much as 2/1 on.
As it happens, I've already had 60 quid at an average 6/1 that it's 15/20%, placed when Nigel Farage was in short trousers, so all I need do now is top up on 7/4 and hey presto!
Its scary stuff and the fact that Miliband forgot to/chose not to (take your pick on from this morning's rescue attempts) mention it it in his speech setting out his 10 year vision (or 50 year vision according to one poster here this morning) is quite astonishing.
The scary thing in this situation is always the growth in interest payments which has been very rapid, so that's a notable absence from an otherwise interesting and sobering article.
The budget 2014 estimate for 2014-15 was £53bn on debt interest payments. The government's income from council tax and business rates combined is £54bn, so pretty much those two taxes are required to fund our debt interest payments.
Best solution is to blow revenue from additional taxation on making crappy public services slightly less crappy (a.k.a. buying votes). (c) The Labour Party 1900-2014
Looking at POTUS betting for 2016,Hilary Clinton is nailed on at 5-4.Elizabeth Warren has said she's not standing but would give her a good run for her money if she did.For 2020 onwards,like seeing a 2 year old first time out like Frankel,one for the future,Zephyr Teachout is an unpriced outsider.Timeform would mark her with a P.
East Coast Establishment.
Will go down like a lead-balloon in West Virginia.
West Virginia has little/no importance to the Democracts anymore when it comes to Presidential Elections. Add it to Tennessee, Arkansas and Kentucky in that category.
Hillary Clinton could be surprisingly competitive in Arkansas. Her and her husband are remembered fondly from his time as governor.
This is the bit in the Dan Hodges piece that we need to pay attention to now:
Not only do we 'need' to pay attention to a journalist but we need to do so, 'now?'
You and Dan Hodges should get together, Socrates. You'd make a good team: two of the least accurate commentators of the current crop.
Inane ad hominem insults from a Tory loyalist. They're ten a penny.
I suppose I was inaccurate when I was the only one on here pointing to the number of child grooming gangs of Muslim heritage and suggesting there was a systemic issue? Presumably had you been posting at the time you wouldn't have had much to say about them because Cameron hadn't signalled a line yet.
Looking at POTUS betting for 2016,Hilary Clinton is nailed on at 5-4.Elizabeth Warren has said she's not standing but would give her a good run for her money if she did.For 2020 onwards,like seeing a 2 year old first time out like Frankel,one for the future,Zephyr Teachout is an unpriced outsider.Timeform would mark her with a P.
You mean "nailed on as the Democrat candidate", not POTUS, surely?
You have to go back to FDR for the last time the Dems had 3-in-a-row (and then to well before Lincoln for another example).
Historical examples in such a small sample set are absurd to place confidence in. Especially as the current political alignment has only been forming since the 1960s.
Looking at POTUS betting for 2016,Hilary Clinton is nailed on at 5-4.Elizabeth Warren has said she's not standing but would give her a good run for her money if she did.For 2020 onwards,like seeing a 2 year old first time out like Frankel,one for the future,Zephyr Teachout is an unpriced outsider.Timeform would mark her with a P.
East Coast Establishment.
Will go down like a lead-balloon in West Virginia.
West Virginia has little/no importance to the Democracts anymore when it comes to Presidential Elections. Add it to Tennessee, Arkansas and Kentucky in that category.
Yes, I know, but that wasn't my point.
It's the ECE issue. Toxic for many States, some of them swing States.
This is the bit in the Dan Hodges piece that we need to pay attention to now:
Not only do we 'need' to pay attention to a journalist but we need to do so, 'now?'
You and Dan Hodges should get together, Socrates. You'd make a good team: two of the least accurate commentators of the current crop.
Inane ad hominem insults from a Tory loyalist. They're ten a penny.
I suppose I was inaccurate when I was the only one on here pointing to the number of child grooming gangs of Muslim heritage and suggesting there was a systemic issue? Presumably had you been posting at the time you wouldn't have had much to say about them because Cameron hadn't signalled a line yet.
I don't think you were the only one. MrJones was also rather active on the subject.
Burnham is a charismatic speaker, and has some very good plans for the NHS. These build on the Lansley reforms but with increased (devolved?) Local democratic accountability.
He had the backing of the audience, and will be one of very few shadow cabinet members to have a good campaign.
Charismatic speaker in his own comfort zone, under pressure in the Commons he is a stuttering ranter, Hunt wipes the floor with him and barely conceals his enjoyment. Miliband should have moved Burnham and put Liz Kendall in his place, one of the very few in the shadow cabinet who is knowledgeable and interesting to listen to. Whether he likes it or not Staffs will stain Burnham forever. Miliband may regret that decision. Burnham is not the man to front a campaign on the NHS. The Tories only have to mention Flower Vases and the not to distant memories come easily back.
The Conservatives are running out of time to have nailed these arguments and rightly painted this image of Burnham.
Looking at POTUS betting for 2016,Hilary Clinton is nailed on at 5-4.Elizabeth Warren has said she's not standing but would give her a good run for her money if she did.For 2020 onwards,like seeing a 2 year old first time out like Frankel,one for the future,Zephyr Teachout is an unpriced outsider.Timeform would mark her with a P.
East Coast Establishment.
Will go down like a lead-balloon in West Virginia.
West Virginia has little/no importance to the Democracts anymore when it comes to Presidential Elections. Add it to Tennessee, Arkansas and Kentucky in that category.
Yes, I know, but that wasn't my point.
It's the ECE issue. Toxic for many States, some of them swing States.
Why don't you check how Clinton is polling in Ohio? If she wins there, it's game over.
Week from hell,labour went from 5 to 7 % ahead in latest poll.
Even Black Wednesday took some weeks to filter through fully. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997 Quite amazing to think a month after the event there was still one poll showing the two parties neck and neck, and yet that single event finished the Conservatives for a generation. Look at what happened next in that link.
The meme is cast.
Miliband is useless and they won't win.
Labour ought to get some kind of temporary boost from conference week. There was no more disastrous conference than the Conservatives' in 2003, yet Yougov bizarrely put them 5% ahead in a poll taken straight afterwards.
OK, now I'm looking at the right market I'm starting to make sense of it and Isam's reply.
Well, you can back everything from 40% upwards and still make a small profit if you balance the bets right. It's hard to see Carswell scoring less than 40%, so for the cautious that's a pretty safe approach.
I agree with TP though - the value is in the upper ranges. I've had 60 at 7/2 and 20 at 14/1 on the top two.
Looking at POTUS betting for 2016,Hilary Clinton is nailed on at 5-4.Elizabeth Warren has said she's not standing but would give her a good run for her money if she did.For 2020 onwards,like seeing a 2 year old first time out like Frankel,one for the future,Zephyr Teachout is an unpriced outsider.Timeform would mark her with a P.
You mean "nailed on as the Democrat candidate", not POTUS, surely?
You have to go back to FDR for the last time the Dems had 3-in-a-row (and then to well before Lincoln for another example).
Historical examples in such a small sample set are absurd to place confidence in. Especially as the current political alignment has only been forming since the 1960s.
Of course. It was the "nailed on" part I was objecting to. History is made to be broken, but the same history suggests it's far from the certainty being suggested. Here's the wonderful XKCD on the topic: http://xkcd.com/1122
UKIP 60-70% and 70%+ both look like value in Ladbrokes' Clacton market.
I would have thought 70+% would be a tough call, but might be wrong.
It's a big ask, but then it's also 14/1. Differential turnout could be huge, though, in a foregone-conclusion race with a "nice guy" winning i.e. not too many are going to be specifically motivated to vote against Carswell.
Week from hell,labour went from 5 to 7 % ahead in latest poll.
Even Black Wednesday took some weeks to filter through fully. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997 Quite amazing to think a month after the event there was still one poll showing the two parties neck and neck, and yet that single event finished the Conservatives for a generation. Look at what happened next in that link.
The meme is cast.
Miliband is useless and they won't win.
Labour ought to get some kind of temporary boost from conference week.
There was no more disastrous conference than the Conservatives' in 2003, yet Yougov bizarrely put them 5% ahead in a poll taken straight afterwards.
Osborne needs to throw a pretty tempting piece of red meat on the table next week, IMHO. It has to be something headline grabbing to entice voters in the marginals.
My bets would be on a fuel duty cut, a rise in the 40% tax band (possibly laddered over the next parliament) or an IT cut to £1m in 2015-16 (that won't be bartered in post election negotiations) to contrast nicely with Labour's mansion tax.
If he was really brave and "Big Bang" he could also go for a reform of council tax. This could give the Conservatives their own 'cost of living' attack line on housing: it could include a couple of new bands at the higher end combined with significant cuts/exemptions at the lower end.
I'm not sure how this would work but it might include differentiating renters from owners. For example, the 25% single person discount is phased in and extended to all sitting tenants and the owner renting the property pays the 25% balance etc.
UKIP 60-70% and 70%+ both look like value in Ladbrokes' Clacton market.
I would have thought 70+% would be a tough call, but might be wrong.
It's a big ask, but then it's also 14/1. Differential turnout could be huge, though, in a foregone-conclusion race with a "nice guy" winning i.e. not too many are going to be specifically motivated to vote against Carswell.
Yes, you would normally discount such a high percentage, but not in this case.
LDs and Labour will scarcely bother to show up, and it sounds like Carswell is carrying large chunks of the Tory vote with him. And he's a nice guy, so I am told.
OK, now I'm looking at the right market I'm starting to make sense of it and Isam's reply.
Well, you can back everything from 40% upwards and still make a small profit if you balance the bets right. It's hard to see Carswell scoring less than 40%, so for the cautious that's a pretty safe approach.
I agree with TP though - the value is in the upper ranges. I've had 60 at 7/2 and 20 at 14/1 on the top two.
What have you done?
My view was firstly that the extremes were far too short. I think it's near inconceivable that Carswell will get less than 30% and highly unlikely that he'll get less than 40%. At the other end, I think we probably need to allow around 20% for Lab+Green+LD+Odds'n'Sods (I'd guess around 15% Labour, 2% LD, 2% Green, 1% loons). So I'm reckoning on Con+UKIP at around 80%.
Carswell got 53% at the GE. A substantial chunk of that is going UKIP, but not all of it, and some Con voters will be dischuffed by his disloyalty. Say one third of that vote remains Con, two-thirds goes UKIP.
In addition my guesstimates on the Lab/LD shares would mean there's 10% each available from Lab and the LibDems to distribute to UKIP and/or Con. There will be some anti-UKIP tactical voting, and there will also be some LibDems who lean Con, but probably Carswell will pick most of the switchers. Let's say he picks up 80% in both cases. There's also 5% BNP, assume that all goes UKIP
That gives me, based on switching from 2010:
UKIP = 67% of 53% Con + 80% of 10% Lab + 80% of 10% LD + 100% of 5 % BNP Con = 33% of 53% Con + 20% of 10% Lab + 20% of 10% LD
Giving, with a bit of rounding:
UKIP 57% Con 22% Lab 15% Green 2% LD 2% Loons 1%
Now, obviously many ifs buts and maybes in that, but the value looks to me to be in the 50-60% or 60% -70% bands
Week from hell,labour went from 5 to 7 % ahead in latest poll.
Even Black Wednesday took some weeks to filter through fully. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997 Quite amazing to think a month after the event there was still one poll showing the two parties neck and neck, and yet that single event finished the Conservatives for a generation. Look at what happened next in that link.
The meme is cast.
Miliband is useless and they won't win.
Labour ought to get some kind of temporary boost from conference week.
There was no more disastrous conference than the Conservatives' in 2003, yet Yougov bizarrely put them 5% ahead in a poll taken straight afterwards.
If he was really brave and "Big Bang" he could also go for a reform of council tax. This could give the Conservatives their own 'cost of living' attack line on housing: it could include a couple of new bands at the higher end combined with significant cuts/exemptions at the lower end.
I'm not sure how this would work but it might include differentiating renters from owners. For example, the 25% single person discount is phased in and extended to all sitting tenants and the owner renting the property pays the 25% balance etc.
Now that's an excellent suggestion that would play very across the UK. I wonder how the impact would be felt in poorer (typically Labour) areas with a lot of renting and few top-end houses. The council would be 'forced' to hike charges to compensate for lost revenue.
Week from hell,labour went from 5 to 7 % ahead in latest poll.
Even Black Wednesday took some weeks to filter through fully. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997 Quite amazing to think a month after the event there was still one poll showing the two parties neck and neck, and yet that single event finished the Conservatives for a generation. Look at what happened next in that link.
The meme is cast.
Miliband is useless and they won't win.
Labour ought to get some kind of temporary boost from conference week.
There was no more disastrous conference than the Conservatives' in 2003, yet Yougov bizarrely put them 5% ahead in a poll taken straight afterwards.
Osborne needs to throw a pretty tempting piece of red meat on the table next week, IMHO. It has to be something headline grabbing to entice voters in the marginals. My bets would be on a fuel duty cut, a rise in the 40% tax band ..... If he was really brave and "Big Bang" he could also go for a reform of council tax. This could give the Conservatives their own 'cost of living' attack line on housing: it could include a couple of new bands at the higher end combined with significant cuts/exemptions at the lower end. I'm not sure how this would work but it might include differentiating renters from owners. For example, the 25% single person discount is phased in and extended to all sitting tenants and the owner renting the property pays the 25% balance etc.
Tim Montgomerie and others have been pushing for 2 higher bands for the Council tax for several years. That would have the benefit of taking away some of the gains from Mansion tax whilst seen to be an equitable and fair move. It may even raise more than a mansion tax!
I'm wondering if this is the most disastrous Labour conference of my lifetime. The Derek Hatton one was pretty impressive, as was the Healey vs Benn fiasco.
There's something particularly delicious about the way Labour shoot themselves in the foot through sheer incompetence.
IF I was Labour I would lose Douglas Alexander, now. In fact, I'd lose him yesterday. The last thing labour need is a Scotsman whining on about a host of issues that will not affect his constituents one iota after 2015. He is very vulnerable to ambush from a well placed member of the public on the 'what has this got to do with you mate? front.
Nah leave them in place for the sport. More jocks telling the English, what fun!
The consensus seems to be that Shadsy has the two lowest bands wrong, so there is value elsewhere.
I think you are overestimating the Labour vote (you of all people!) so I prefer the bands above 60%. But I agree the 50/60 band is wrong too.
Have a look now at my GE post on UKIP %ages. My mistake caused me to do the arith and I think by chance I found some value in backing the two mid-ranges. You can get very close to evens for the whole range between 10/20%. It seems to me more than a 50% probability that's where Nigel's gang will end up.
OK, now I'm looking at the right market I'm starting to make sense of it and Isam's reply.
Well, you can back everything from 40% upwards and still make a small profit if you balance the bets right. It's hard to see Carswell scoring less than 40%, so for the cautious that's a pretty safe approach.
I agree with TP though - the value is in the upper ranges. I've had 60 at 7/2 and 20 at 14/1 on the top two.
What have you done?
My view was firstly that the extremes were far too short. I think it's near inconceivable that Carswell will get less than 30% and highly unlikely that he'll get less than 40%. At the other end, I think we probably need to allow around 20% for Lab+Green+LD+Odds'n'Sods (I'd guess around 15% Labour, 2% LD, 2% Green, 1% loons). So I'm reckoning on Con+UKIP at around 80%.
Carswell got 53% at the GE. A substantial chunk of that is going UKIP, but not all of it, and some Con voters will be dischuffed by his disloyalty. Say one third of that vote remains Con, two-thirds goes UKIP.
In addition my guesstimates on the Lab/LD shares would mean there's 10% each available from Lab and the LibDems to distribute to UKIP and/or Con. There will be some anti-UKIP tactical voting, and there will also be some LibDems who lean Con, but probably Carswell will pick most of the switchers. Let's say he picks up 80% in both cases. There's also 5% BNP, assume that all goes UKIP
That gives me, based on switching from 2010:
UKIP = 67% of 53% Con + 80% of 10% Lab + 80% of 10% LD + 100% of 5 % BNP Con = 33% of 53% Con + 20% of 10% Lab + 20% of 10% LD
Giving, with a bit of rounding:
UKIP 57% Con 22% Lab 15% Green 2% LD 2% Loons 1%
Now, obviously many ifs buts and maybes in that, but the value looks to me to be in the 50-60% or 60% -70% bands
Pretty much what I came to, shame shadsy has cut 40-50 & 50-60!
UKIP 60-70% and 70%+ both look like value in Ladbrokes' Clacton market.
I would have thought 70+% would be a tough call, but might be wrong.
It's a big ask, but then it's also 14/1. Differential turnout could be huge, though, in a foregone-conclusion race with a "nice guy" winning i.e. not too many are going to be specifically motivated to vote against Carswell.
Yes, you would normally discount such a high percentage, but not in this case.
LDs and Labour will scarcely bother to show up, and it sounds like Carswell is carrying large chunks of the Tory vote with him. And he's a nice guy, so I am told.
14/1 looks big.
Agreed. And, very similar to my own canvassing experience.
The consensus seems to be that Shadsy has the two lowest bands wrong, so there is value elsewhere.
I think you are overestimating the Labour vote (you of all people!) so I prefer the bands above 60%. But I agree the 50/60 band is wrong too.
Have a look now at my GE post on UKIP %ages. My mistake caused me to do the arith and I think by chance I found some value in backing the two mid-ranges. You can get very close to evens for the whole range between 10/20%. It seems to me more than a 50% probability that's where Nigel's gang will end up.
Yes, I had a look at your post on the GE bands and tend to agree, especially on the 10% to 15% band.
On the Labour share in Clacton, I was guided in part by Newark. I appreciate that the constituencies are quite different in many ways, but Labour did nothing much there either and in recent memory Clacton has had substantial Labour support. Some of that will stay loyal come hell or high water.
''There's something particularly delicious about the way Labour shoot themselves in the foot through sheer incompetence.''
I'll never forget the rapturous standing ovation Arthur Scargill got in the early 80s when he opined that 'all that I have ever done, is to fight for my class....'
The consensus seems to be that Shadsy has the two lowest bands wrong, so there is value elsewhere.
I think you are overestimating the Labour vote (you of all people!) so I prefer the bands above 60%. But I agree the 50/60 band is wrong too.
Have a look now at my GE post on UKIP %ages. My mistake caused me to do the arith and I think by chance I found some value in backing the two mid-ranges. You can get very close to evens for the whole range between 10/20%. It seems to me more than a 50% probability that's where Nigel's gang will end up.
Looking at POTUS betting for 2016,Hilary Clinton is nailed on at 5-4.Elizabeth Warren has said she's not standing but would give her a good run for her money if she did.For 2020 onwards,like seeing a 2 year old first time out like Frankel,one for the future,Zephyr Teachout is an unpriced outsider.Timeform would mark her with a P.
You mean "nailed on as the Democrat candidate", not POTUS, surely?
You have to go back to FDR for the last time the Dems had 3-in-a-row (and then to well before Lincoln for another example).
Historical examples in such a small sample set are absurd to place confidence in. Especially as the current political alignment has only been forming since the 1960s.
Of course. It was the "nailed on" part I was objecting to. History is made to be broken, but the same history suggests it's far from the certainty being suggested. Here's the wonderful XKCD on the topic: http://xkcd.com/1122
I think "nailed on" is way over used in general. But Hillary Clinton has far better chances than the current odds suggest. There isn't a conceivable Republican majority in the electoral college without both Ohio and Florida, and Clinton polls well ahead in both of them, (particularly the former) with few undecideds. To believe the Republican party can win this election, you'd have to find someone that could reverse the situation in both states, despite very different demographics. Who can plausibly do that on the GOP side? Bush? Paul? Christie?
' I'll never forget the rapturous standing ovation Arthur Scargill got in the early 80s when he opined that 'all that I have ever done, is to fight for my class....'
Happy days
He left out "and sort out a lovely flat for myself for life".
''There's something particularly delicious about the way Labour shoot themselves in the foot through sheer incompetence.''
I'll never forget the rapturous standing ovation Arthur Scargill got in the early 80s when he opined that 'all that I have ever done, is to fight for my class....'
Happy days
Haha oh yes! I'd forgotten that occasion. That was a cracker
The year prior to that the PB Tories declared it an acopalypse.
I confidently predict that next year's conference will be adjudged to be a cataclysm, and the next year, and the year after that.
No it's not pb I've been following on this: it's the mainstream media. They are ripping Miliband to pieces. I can't ever recall the BBC of all organisations laying into a Labour leader the day after his (sadly always 'his') speech. It is absolutely shambolic. Compare this to Tony Blair's Labour. Actually, maybe don't. If you're a Labour supporter it must make you weep.
Week from hell,labour went from 5 to 7 % ahead in latest poll.
Even Black Wednesday took some weeks to filter through fully. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997 Quite amazing to think a month after the event there was still one poll showing the two parties neck and neck, and yet that single event finished the Conservatives for a generation. Look at what happened next in that link.
The meme is cast.
Miliband is useless and they won't win.
Labour ought to get some kind of temporary boost from conference week.
There was no more disastrous conference than the Conservatives' in 2003, yet Yougov bizarrely put them 5% ahead in a poll taken straight afterwards.
Osborne needs to throw a pretty tempting piece of red meat on the table next week, IMHO. It has to be something headline grabbing to entice voters in the marginals. My bets would be on a fuel duty cut, a rise in the 40% tax band ..... If he was really brave and "Big Bang" he could also go for a reform of council tax. This could give the Conservatives their own 'cost of living' attack line on housing: it could include a couple of new bands at the higher end combined with significant cuts/exemptions at the lower end. I'm not sure how this would work but it might include differentiating renters from owners. For example, the 25% single person discount is phased in and extended to all sitting tenants and the owner renting the property pays the 25% balance etc.
Tim Montgomerie and others have been pushing for 2 higher bands for the Council tax for several years. That would have the benefit of taking away some of the gains from Mansion tax whilst seen to be an equitable and fair move. It may even raise more than a mansion tax!
Plus it had the bonus of taxed monies being spent locally by the council rather than a mansion tax which is really just a tax on London to bung more money to Labour voters.
I think there's a reasonable chance of UKIP getting 70%+, and have put a tiny sum on it.
Against that is the Conservative conference, and the situation in the Middle East which will allow Cameron to look statesmanlike. Of course, if the conference is a disaster or he forgets half his speech that may end up helping UKIP.
Labour's conference being earlier means any bonus from it will have more time to fade for their by-election defence.
UKIP = 67% of 53% Con + 80% of 10% Lab + 80% of 10% LD + 100% of 5 % BNP Con = 33% of 53% Con + 20% of 10% Lab + 20% of 10% LD
I think you may need to account for switching to and from DNV as well. Anything from 55-75 seems plausible to me, but I haven't studied it that carefully.
The consensus seems to be that Shadsy has the two lowest bands wrong, so there is value elsewhere.
I think you are overestimating the Labour vote (you of all people!) so I prefer the bands above 60%. But I agree the 50/60 band is wrong too.
Have a look now at my GE post on UKIP %ages. My mistake caused me to do the arith and I think by chance I found some value in backing the two mid-ranges. You can get very close to evens for the whole range between 10/20%. It seems to me more than a 50% probability that's where Nigel's gang will end up.
Yes, I had a look at your post on the GE bands and tend to agree, especially on the 10% to 15% band.
On the Labour share in Clacton, I was guided in part by Newark. I appreciate that the constituencies are quite different in many ways, but Labour did nothing much there either and in recent memory Clacton has had substantial Labour support. Some of that will stay loyal come hell or high water.
Perhaps, Richard. It is in any case gratifying to note that even the Great Shadsy has weakened under the Power of PB and shortened up the 50/60 option.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a result along the lines of 70/20/10 (UKIP/Con/Lab and others) but maybe the traditional voters will stand firm.
Mr. PB, to be fair, whilst it's mostly going to hammer London it'll also be about the important business of Scottish Labour MPs inflicting taxes on English people, whilst leaving their own constituents untouched.
The consensus seems to be that Shadsy has the two lowest bands wrong, so there is value elsewhere.
I think you are overestimating the Labour vote (you of all people!) so I prefer the bands above 60%. But I agree the 50/60 band is wrong too.
Have a look now at my GE post on UKIP %ages. My mistake caused me to do the arith and I think by chance I found some value in backing the two mid-ranges. You can get very close to evens for the whole range between 10/20%. It seems to me more than a 50% probability that's where Nigel's gang will end up.
Paddy is 8/13 over 9.5 which backs you up
Yes, I noticed that, thanks.
In fact I think there's a bit of value in that 8/13 and have taken some. What's their polling average at the moment - around 13%?
I was really replying to oxfordsimon - who believes the theory of evolution should overrule Christian belief. Very few people of any persuasion think the earth was created 6000 years ago, the comment was made only to devalue Christians. The theory of evolution led to staggering numbers of deaths in the last century, Christianity not so much.
Of course the fact of evolution should overrule Christian belief.
And how on earth did the scientific breakthrough that showed evolution was at the heart of the development of life on this planet lead to a "staggering number of deaths"?
You are clearly a fool and/or a troll.
Very few Christians don't accept evolution.
Darwin explains how. Faith explains why.
Two different questions, two different answers.
Faith cannot explain anything. It is an irrational position where you accept the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence and use the existence of that 'being' as the basis for a belief system.
There is no question that can ever be answered by Faith.
If you are going to get into semantics I'd accept that "it provides an answer" but doesn't "explain".
But tell me, Mr Rational, why did the universe begin? Not how (Big Bang, et al) but why.
I was really replying to oxfordsimon - who believes the theory of evolution should overrule Christian belief. Very few people of any persuasion think the earth was created 6000 years ago, the comment was made only to devalue Christians. The theory of evolution led to staggering numbers of deaths in the last century, Christianity not so much.
Of course the fact of evolution should overrule Christian belief.
And how on earth did the scientific breakthrough that showed evolution was at the heart of the development of life on this planet lead to a "staggering number of deaths"?
You are clearly a fool and/or a troll.
Very few Christians don't accept evolution.
Darwin explains how. Faith explains why.
Two different questions, two different answers.
Faith cannot explain anything. It is an irrational position where you accept the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence and use the existence of that 'being' as the basis for a belief system.
There is no question that can ever be answered by Faith.
If you are going to get into semantics I'd accept that "it provides an answer" but doesn't "explain".
But tell me, Mr Rational, why did the universe begin? Not how (Big Bang, et al) but why.
Looking at POTUS betting for 2016,Hilary Clinton is nailed on at 5-4.Elizabeth Warren has said she's not standing but would give her a good run for her money if she did.For 2020 onwards,like seeing a 2 year old first time out like Frankel,one for the future,Zephyr Teachout is an unpriced outsider.Timeform would mark her with a P.
You mean "nailed on as the Democrat candidate", not POTUS, surely?
You have to go back to FDR for the last time the Dems had 3-in-a-row (and then to well before Lincoln for another example).
Historical examples in such a small sample set are absurd to place confidence in. Especially as the current political alignment has only been forming since the 1960s.
Of course. It was the "nailed on" part I was objecting to. History is made to be broken, but the same history suggests it's far from the certainty being suggested. Here's the wonderful XKCD on the topic: http://xkcd.com/1122
I think "nailed on" is way over used in general. But Hillary Clinton has far better chances than the current odds suggest. There isn't a conceivable Republican majority in the electoral college without both Ohio and Florida, and Clinton polls well ahead in both of them, (particularly the former) with few undecideds. To believe the Republican party can win this election, you'd have to find someone that could reverse the situation in both states, despite very different demographics. Who can plausibly do that on the GOP side? Bush? Paul? Christie?
Surely, what will matter is how voters judge Obama's Presidency in two years' time?
If they view it as a success, I'm sure the Democratic candidate will win. If they don't, she won't.
Week from hell,labour went from 5 to 7 % ahead in latest poll.
Even Black Wednesday took some weeks to filter through fully. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997 Quite amazing to think a month after the event there was still one poll showing the two parties neck and neck, and yet that single event finished the Conservatives for a generation. Look at what happened next in that link.
The meme is cast.
Miliband is useless and they won't win.
Labour ought to get some kind of temporary boost from conference week.
There was no more disastrous conference than the Conservatives' in 2003, yet Yougov bizarrely put them 5% ahead in a poll taken straight afterwards.
If he was really brave and "Big Bang" he could also go for a reform of council tax. This could give the Conservatives their own 'cost of living' attack line on housing: it could include a couple of new bands at the higher end combined with significant cuts/exemptions at the lower end.
I'm not sure how this would work but it might include differentiating renters from owners. For example, the 25% single person discount is phased in and extended to all sitting tenants and the owner renting the property pays the 25% balance etc.
Now that's an excellent suggestion that would play very across the UK. I wonder how the impact would be felt in poorer (typically Labour) areas with a lot of renting and few top-end houses. The council would be 'forced' to hike charges to compensate for lost revenue.
Cheers. I think the key difference now is that a lot of young professionals and middle earners are now "renters" who are feeling very stretched and trying to save for a deposit. I don't see why owners should get an entirely free ride off the increasing rental yields.
In London, this could be worth up to £500 a year, which is not an insignificant amount, and combined with a 40% tax band rise amount to a significant tax cut over the whole parliament to those earning £35-£50k, as well as benefiting poorer voters.
I was really replying to oxfordsimon - who believes the theory of evolution should overrule Christian belief. Very few people of any persuasion think the earth was created 6000 years ago, the comment was made only to devalue Christians. The theory of evolution led to staggering numbers of deaths in the last century, Christianity not so much.
Of course the fact of evolution should overrule Christian belief.
And how on earth did the scientific breakthrough that showed evolution was at the heart of the development of life on this planet lead to a "staggering number of deaths"?
You are clearly a fool and/or a troll.
Very few Christians don't accept evolution.
Darwin explains how. Faith explains why.
Two different questions, two different answers.
Faith cannot explain anything. It is an irrational position where you accept the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence and use the existence of that 'being' as the basis for a belief system.
There is no question that can ever be answered by Faith.
If you are going to get into semantics I'd accept that "it provides an answer" but doesn't "explain".
But tell me, Mr Rational, why did the universe begin? Not how (Big Bang, et al) but why.
Oh that's easy. Basically, without Politicalbetting there would be nothingness and that simply wouldn't do. The whole universe exists, because that is necessary for this site to exist.
Mr. PB, to be fair, whilst it's mostly going to hammer London it'll also be about the important business of Scottish Labour MPs inflicting taxes on English people, whilst leaving their own constituents untouched.
But that is true for MPs in the North as well, I don't think there are many £2m properties outside of London and the south east. Possibly a few massive country manors. A local property tax with the money raised and spent in the local area would be much fairer. I still think the idea to tax second properties would be a winner as it would reduce the destructive buy-to-let culture in the middle classes and allow younger people to get on the property ladder.
The consensus seems to be that Shadsy has the two lowest bands wrong, so there is value elsewhere.
I think you are overestimating the Labour vote (you of all people!) so I prefer the bands above 60%. But I agree the 50/60 band is wrong too.
Have a look now at my GE post on UKIP %ages. My mistake caused me to do the arith and I think by chance I found some value in backing the two mid-ranges. You can get very close to evens for the whole range between 10/20%. It seems to me more than a 50% probability that's where Nigel's gang will end up.
Paddy is 8/13 over 9.5 which backs you up
Yes, I noticed that, thanks.
In fact I think there's a bit of value in that 8/13 and have taken some. What's their polling average at the moment - around 13%?
I'm not sure. You Gov adjusted their methodology recently and ukip score higher as a result, usually 13-16
But ICM have the in single figures, and a lot of people pay big respect to them, although it seems to me that their long range forecasts are a bit iffy
Ladbrokes are arbing betfair in the ukip seats market, free money there on zero or 5+
Bétfair are 6/1 none, lads and hills 1/4 one or more...
The consensus seems to be that Shadsy has the two lowest bands wrong, so there is value elsewhere.
I think you are overestimating the Labour vote (you of all people!) so I prefer the bands above 60%. But I agree the 50/60 band is wrong too.
Have a look now at my GE post on UKIP %ages. My mistake caused me to do the arith and I think by chance I found some value in backing the two mid-ranges. You can get very close to evens for the whole range between 10/20%. It seems to me more than a 50% probability that's where Nigel's gang will end up.
Paddy is 8/13 over 9.5 which backs you up
Yes, I noticed that, thanks.
In fact I think there's a bit of value in that 8/13 and have taken some. What's their polling average at the moment - around 13%?
I'm not sure. You Gov adjusted their methodology recently and ukip score higher as a result, usually 13-16
But ICM have the in single figures, and a lot of people pay big respect to them, although it seems to me that their long range forecasts are a bit iffy
Ladbrokes are arbing betfair in the ukip swats market, free money there on zero or 5+
Thanks, Isam.
I'm all green on that market with a big plus if it's 5+. I think I'll collect.
A senior French minister has criticised Turkey after plans to arrest suspected jihadis returning from Syria collapsed when they were put on the wrong flight.
As security agents waited at a Paris airport, the three suspects were flown to Marseille in southern France, where they left the airport unchallenged.
...
The three suspects have now handed themselves in to police in southern France.
Very sad to note the redoubtable Deborah Mitford, Dowager Duchess of Devonshire, has died aged 94. She was the youngest of the sometime notorious "Mitford Sisters".
I've been busy today, any major political news happening?
Not really. Miliband and his aides are scurrying around trying to brief that leaving out the deficit in his speech wasn't a big deal. Parliament may also be recalled on Friday to debate the UK joining in airstrikes on IS.
Mr. Corporeal, you are being a silly sausage, and you know it.
Scotland has a Parliament. England does not.
Scottish MPs can vote on matters (which soon greatly expand in number) which do not affect their constituents. This is democratically indefensible.
It's bizarre that the left suddenly grows wary of devolution the instant it might be applied to England.
I acknowledge complaints about unfairness with the one sided nature of the situation.
But it's patently obvious that all MPs vote on matters not directly affecting their constituents pretty regularly. Urban/rural, inland/coastal and many other divides.
The consensus seems to be that Shadsy has the two lowest bands wrong, so there is value elsewhere.
I think you are overestimating the Labour vote (you of all people!) so I prefer the bands above 60%. But I agree the 50/60 band is wrong too.
Have a look now at my GE post on UKIP %ages. My mistake caused me to do the arith and I think by chance I found some value in backing the two mid-ranges. You can get very close to evens for the whole range between 10/20%. It seems to me more than a 50% probability that's where Nigel's gang will end up.
Paddy is 8/13 over 9.5 which backs you up
Yes, I noticed that, thanks.
In fact I think there's a bit of value in that 8/13 and have taken some. What's their polling average at the moment - around 13%?
I'm not sure. You Gov adjusted their methodology recently and ukip score higher as a result, usually 13-16
But ICM have the in single figures, and a lot of people pay big respect to them, although it seems to me that their long range forecasts are a bit iffy
Ladbrokes are arbing betfair in the ukip swats market, free money there on zero or 5+
Thanks, Isam.
I'm all green on that market with a big plus if it's 5+. I think I'll collect.
Hope the big plus cops!
Haven't bet on that at all, just a few constituencies, over 10% & to beat the lib Dems
Looking at POTUS betting for 2016,Hilary Clinton is nailed on at 5-4.Elizabeth Warren has said she's not standing but would give her a good run for her money if she did.For 2020 onwards,like seeing a 2 year old first time out like Frankel,one for the future,Zephyr Teachout is an unpriced outsider.Timeform would mark her with a P.
You mean "nailed on as the Democrat candidate", not POTUS, surely?
You have to go back to FDR for the last time the Dems had 3-in-a-row (and then to well before Lincoln for another example).
Historical examples in such a small sample set are absurd to place confidence in. Especially as the current political alignment has only been forming since the 1960s.
Of course. It was the "nailed on" part I was objecting to. History is made to be broken, but the same history suggests it's far from the certainty being suggested. Here's the wonderful XKCD on the topic: http://xkcd.com/1122
I think "nailed on" is way over used in general. But Hillary Clinton has far better chances than the current odds suggest. There isn't a conceivable Republican majority in the electoral college without both Ohio and Florida, and Clinton polls well ahead in both of them, (particularly the former) with few undecideds. To believe the Republican party can win this election, you'd have to find someone that could reverse the situation in both states, despite very different demographics. Who can plausibly do that on the GOP side? Bush? Paul? Christie?
Surely, what will matter is how voters judge Obama's Presidency in two years' time?
If they view it as a success, I'm sure the Democratic candidate will win. If they don't, she won't.
And of course the GOP's ability to pick a member of the human race noticeable to swing and independent voters.
I was really replying to oxfordsimon - who believes the theory of evolution should overrule Christian belief. Very few people of any persuasion think the earth was created 6000 years ago, the comment was made only to devalue Christians. The theory of evolution led to staggering numbers of deaths in the last century, Christianity not so much.
I know I shouldn't, but can't resist... Go on, please do enlighten us how The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection led to "staggering numbers of deaths in the last century"...
I think the word you're looking for is Eugenics, and that has feck-all to do with Darwinian evolution.
Indeed. The notion that there is a single human species, with modification under natural selection for local conditions, makes racism, slavery, etc., philosophically and ethically much more difficult to defend (and C. Darwin was very anti-slavery). Conversely, the view that the races were separately divinely created would make it much easier to condone racism. In practice of course various people's thinking was much more complex than that: especially if the definition of a human was that she or he had a mortal soul - and separate divine creation of the races didn't necessarily preclude that.
I'm not familiar with the detailed history of eugenics apart from recalling the Races of Man by Robert Knox of Edinburgh - he didn't like the Irish or other Celts and didn't approve of their immigration. One wonders a little if that was to do with the fact that he had been unwise enough to patronise Messrs Burke and Hare for nice fresh human corpses for his anatomy school.
But it is interesting that (a) evolution was well around before Darwin published in 1859 - and that Knox's key book was published in 1850
and (b) the heyday of eugenics was in the later C19 and early C20 - when specifically Darwinian evolution was much overlooked in favour of other forms of evolutionary thought such as quasi-Lamarckian notions, until the 'modern synthesis' under Julian Huxley et al in the 1930s.
"For most people, they don't understand what it [the deficit] is anyway. it's something that has been hyped by the Tories, who have made people scared of it. The NHS affects people's everyday lives," said Hanna Toms, Labour's Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Truro and Falmouth.
Mr. Carnyx, beg to differ very greatly. Shortly after evolution became widely accepted the view that separate human species (most notably separated into groups like blacks, Indians, Chinese and white Europeans) existed and was used precisely to justify dominance of one group over another (for their own good, you understand).
Even races within white Europe (as it was) were seen by some to exist.
"For most people, they don't understand what it [the deficit] is anyway. it's something that has been hyped by the Tories, who have made people scared of it. The NHS affects people's everyday lives," said Hanna Toms, Labour's Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Truro and Falmouth.
"For most people, they don't understand what it [the deficit] is anyway. it's something that has been hyped by the Tories, who have made people scared of it. The NHS affects people's everyday lives," said Hanna Toms, Labour's Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Truro and Falmouth.
I think she makes a very valid point. Same reason credit cards and personal debt got out of hand -instant pain/deferred pleasure vs. instant pleasure/deferred pain. Until people see reward from paying off Britain's national debt -a reward of some sort, or penalty for failing to do so -a penalty of some sort, they will not be bothered about it.
Comments
I understand that finch beaks may change, I understand inheritance. No one disagrees.
But I understand you to say evolution explains everything and there is no room for soft sentiment. In mechanist evolution nature red in tooth and claw should be the way of life. It doesn't say "you shall not kill" or "do not covet your neighbour's wife", quite the reverse. Yet in both human and animal populations the softer rules are strictly observed.
I come from a race with very thick lips, any ideas of the evolutionary driver - any at all? Perhaps my ancesters could handle bigger cups and gained a competitive advantage? Our noses are a bit big too - oh I know this one, our noses could better filter sand out in the desert. Though my race doesn't come from a desert clime, I am prepared.
You should come visit, there's a celebratory disco on the first night, you could morris the night away liberally.
I suggest that you stop now before you make yourself look even more foolish.
The Scots sending nothing but SNP MPs to Westminster in return for devomax is not the worst solution to the vexed problems we have right now.
No need for English parliaments or more legislation...??
Miliband wants to introduce an additional tax on bird boxes worth more than £20.
Of course, they won't be answered to the satisfaction of a person who does not share that Faith, but just because you don't have Faith in an organised religion/spirituality way doesn't mean that you don't have some sort of Faith of your own.
For example, I entirely lack Faith in a creator God. However, I'm aware that I have Faith in what you might call a common humanity - that is that everyone can be reasonable and get along. It just might take a bit of work to sort out the details.
I can find fragments of evidence that support my Faith, and there are a variety of events that challenge my Faith, but in the end I have come to accept that I can't prove it, and that no-one else can disprove it, and so it is simply an article of Faith.
You probably also have such a Faith of your own, even if you don't recognise what it is that you believe in, and even if it doesn't match what you think of as a Faith. Deep down there will be something that you believe, regardless of the evidence that is available.
If I were a Labour supporter I'd be terribly depressed.
Angus SNP 8.7 84.28%
Perth & Perthshire North SNP 9.1 82.73%
Banff & Buchan SNP 10.5 83.59%
Moray SNP 13.6 83.59%
Dundee East SNP 4.5 80.78%
Na h-Eileanan an Iar SNP 12.8 75.44%
Gordon Lib-Dem 13.8 44.92%
Argyll & Bute Lib-Dem 7.6 42.56%
Inverness Lib-Dem 18.6 39.95%
Ochil & Perthshire South Labour 10.3 38.37%
Yes, I think I see what you are getting at.
I make the overround just under 102%. Since the 0/5% and >25% options are very unlikely he is effectively betting overbroke - by nearly 20% on my figures.
What's more, I'd be prepared to chance my arm a bit and take out the 5/10% and 20/25% option and zero in on the 10/20% range. He's effectively offering even money. Common sense suggests it should be odds on - maybe as much as 2/1 on.
As it happens, I've already had 60 quid at an average 6/1 that it's 15/20%, placed when Nigel Farage was in short trousers, so all I need do now is top up on 7/4 and hey presto!
Thanks for the heads up.
(c) The Labour Party 1900-2014
UKIP 60-70% and 70%+ both look like value in Ladbrokes' Clacton market.
Ignore previous post. I was looking at wrong market (although comments still hold.)
I suppose I was inaccurate when I was the only one on here pointing to the number of child grooming gangs of Muslim heritage and suggesting there was a systemic issue? Presumably had you been posting at the time you wouldn't have had much to say about them because Cameron hadn't signalled a line yet.
It's the ECE issue. Toxic for many States, some of them swing States.
I agree that 60-70 is a good bet, I liked combining the the three for 1/5 but that's 1/9 now
OK, now I'm looking at the right market I'm starting to make sense of it and Isam's reply.
Well, you can back everything from 40% upwards and still make a small profit if you balance the bets right. It's hard to see Carswell scoring less than 40%, so for the cautious that's a pretty safe approach.
I agree with TP though - the value is in the upper ranges. I've had 60 at 7/2 and 20 at 14/1 on the top two.
What have you done?
http://xkcd.com/1122
The last thing labour need is a Scotsman whining on about a host of issues that will not affect his constituents one iota after 2015.
He is very vulnerable to ambush from a well placed member of the public on the 'what has this got to do with you mate? front.
Does it matter what he says Mr Morris? He is the living embodiment of the tories' argument.
My bets would be on a fuel duty cut, a rise in the 40% tax band (possibly laddered over the next parliament) or an IT cut to £1m in 2015-16 (that won't be bartered in post election negotiations) to contrast nicely with Labour's mansion tax.
If he was really brave and "Big Bang" he could also go for a reform of council tax. This could give the Conservatives their own 'cost of living' attack line on housing: it could include a couple of new bands at the higher end combined with significant cuts/exemptions at the lower end.
I'm not sure how this would work but it might include differentiating renters from owners. For example, the 25% single person discount is phased in and extended to all sitting tenants and the owner renting the property pays the 25% balance etc.
http://order-order.com/2014/09/24/guy-news-labour-conference-special-money-money-money/
Poor old Andrew Neil. How many Common Purpose courses will he be sent on to be re-educated if Labour get in?
LDs and Labour will scarcely bother to show up, and it sounds like Carswell is carrying large chunks of the Tory vote with him. And he's a nice guy, so I am told.
14/1 looks big.
Carswell got 53% at the GE. A substantial chunk of that is going UKIP, but not all of it, and some Con voters will be dischuffed by his disloyalty. Say one third of that vote remains Con, two-thirds goes UKIP.
In addition my guesstimates on the Lab/LD shares would mean there's 10% each available from Lab and the LibDems to distribute to UKIP and/or Con. There will be some anti-UKIP tactical voting, and there will also be some LibDems who lean Con, but probably Carswell will pick most of the switchers. Let's say he picks up 80% in both cases. There's also 5% BNP, assume that all goes UKIP
That gives me, based on switching from 2010:
UKIP = 67% of 53% Con + 80% of 10% Lab + 80% of 10% LD + 100% of 5 % BNP
Con = 33% of 53% Con + 20% of 10% Lab + 20% of 10% LD
Giving, with a bit of rounding:
UKIP 57%
Con 22%
Lab 15%
Green 2%
LD 2%
Loons 1%
Now, obviously many ifs buts and maybes in that, but the value looks to me to be in the 50-60% or 60% -70% bands
:-O
There's something particularly delicious about the way Labour shoot themselves in the foot through sheer incompetence.
The consensus seems to be that Shadsy has the two lowest bands wrong, so there is value elsewhere.
I think you are overestimating the Labour vote (you of all people!) so I prefer the bands above 60%. But I agree the 50/60 band is wrong too.
Have a look now at my GE post on UKIP %ages. My mistake caused me to do the arith and I think by chance I found some value in backing the two mid-ranges. You can get very close to evens for the whole range between 10/20%. It seems to me more than a 50% probability that's where Nigel's gang will end up.
The best bet is the 7/2 60-70 IMO
Pp and b365 up in heywood now
1/5 10/3 seems to be the consensus
On the Labour share in Clacton, I was guided in part by Newark. I appreciate that the constituencies are quite different in many ways, but Labour did nothing much there either and in recent memory Clacton has had substantial Labour support. Some of that will stay loyal come hell or high water.
I'll never forget the rapturous standing ovation Arthur Scargill got in the early 80s when he opined that 'all that I have ever done, is to fight for my class....'
Happy days
Every Labour conference is a disaster on PB.
Last year's was deemed a catastrophe.
The year prior to that the PB Tories declared it an acopalypse.
I confidently predict that next year's conference will be adjudged to be a cataclysm, and the next year, and the year after that.
Anointing YvettePicking a new leader is always funAgainst that is the Conservative conference, and the situation in the Middle East which will allow Cameron to look statesmanlike. Of course, if the conference is a disaster or he forgets half his speech that may end up helping UKIP.
Labour's conference being earlier means any bonus from it will have more time to fade for their by-election defence.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a result along the lines of 70/20/10 (UKIP/Con/Lab and others) but maybe the traditional voters will stand firm.
Yes, I noticed that, thanks.
In fact I think there's a bit of value in that 8/13 and have taken some. What's their polling average at the moment - around 13%?
'Excellent summary from Guido on Labour's financial genius.'
Hilarious,its only 8 moths before the election & nobody on Labour's front bench has a clue.
But tell me, Mr Rational, why did the universe begin? Not how (Big Bang, et al) but why.
If they view it as a success, I'm sure the Democratic candidate will win. If they don't, she won't.
In London, this could be worth up to £500 a year, which is not an insignificant amount, and combined with a 40% tax band rise amount to a significant tax cut over the whole parliament to those earning £35-£50k, as well as benefiting poorer voters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11117924/Sketch-A-young-man-called-Ed.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/24/english-votes-english-laws-absurdity-separatist
But ICM have the in single figures, and a lot of people pay big respect to them, although it seems to me that their long range forecasts are a bit iffy
Ladbrokes are arbing betfair in the ukip seats market, free money there on zero or 5+
Bétfair are 6/1 none, lads and hills 1/4 one or more...
I'm all green on that market with a big plus if it's 5+. I think I'll collect.
There's a different point about inequality.
A senior French minister has criticised Turkey after plans to arrest suspected jihadis returning from Syria collapsed when they were put on the wrong flight.
As security agents waited at a Paris airport, the three suspects were flown to Marseille in southern France, where they left the airport unchallenged.
...
The three suspects have now handed themselves in to police in southern France.
Mr. Corporeal, you are being a silly sausage, and you know it.
Scotland has a Parliament. England does not.
Scottish MPs can vote on matters (which soon greatly expand in number) which do not affect their constituents. This is democratically indefensible.
It's bizarre that the left suddenly grows wary of devolution the instant it might be applied to England.
RIP.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29348946
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29352537
But it's patently obvious that all MPs vote on matters not directly affecting their constituents pretty regularly. Urban/rural, inland/coastal and many other divides.
Haven't bet on that at all, just a few constituencies, over 10% & to beat the lib Dems
I'm not familiar with the detailed history of eugenics apart from recalling the Races of Man by Robert Knox of Edinburgh - he didn't like the Irish or other Celts and didn't approve of their immigration. One wonders a little if that was to do with the fact that he had been unwise enough to patronise Messrs Burke and Hare for nice fresh human corpses for his anatomy school.
But it is interesting that (a) evolution was well around before Darwin published in 1859 - and that Knox's key book was published in 1850
and (b) the heyday of eugenics was in the later C19 and early C20 - when specifically Darwinian evolution was much overlooked in favour of other forms of evolutionary thought such as quasi-Lamarckian notions, until the 'modern synthesis' under Julian Huxley et al in the 1930s.
I'm just after English equality.
You are right that my phrasing was a shade clunky. I blame being strangely tired.
"For most people, they don't understand what it [the deficit] is anyway. it's something that has been hyped by the Tories, who have made people scared of it. The NHS affects people's everyday lives," said Hanna Toms, Labour's Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Truro and Falmouth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29343857
You will always find the media prepared to declare a conference as a disaster.
Last year, it was the march of Marxism.
Even races within white Europe (as it was) were seen by some to exist.
I recall reading about it at university.